~ Center for Interdisciplinary Studies ~
and
~ Institut de la Communication ~
UNESCO Chair in Cultural Policy and Management
Master thesis:
Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Student:
Miloš Ćirić, E12/12
Supervisor: Prof. Milena Dragićević-Šešić, PhD
Belgrade, September 2013.
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... 3 Le résumé ...... 5
I Introduction ...... 10
II Theory, Methodology and Hypotheses...... 14 2.1. Goals and objectives of research ...... 18 2.2. Research and conceptual framework ...... 19 2.3. Main and supporting hypotheses ...... 21
III Cultural Diplomacy in Theory and Practice...... 22 3.1. Conceptual considerations on cultural diplomacy ...... 22 3.2. Relation between public and cultural diplomacy...... 27 3.3. How and why cultural diplomacy is maneuvered? ...... 29 3.4. Audience, message and tools of cultural diplomacy ...... 31 3.5. Examples of Good Practices – Sweden, UK, France, Canada ...... 34
IV Short Historical Overview of Cultural Policy in Serbia ...... 39 4.1. Cultural policy as reflection of Serbian national identity in the 20th century ...... 42 4.2. Between two World Wars ...... 43 4.3. Tito’s Yugoslavia ...... 44 4.4. The eighties ...... 49 4.5. The nineties ...... 51
V Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Ministry of Culture in Serbia regarding Cultural Diplomacy, 2001-2013 ...... 56
5.1. Introduction and Important Annotations ...... 57
5.2. Period 2001-2004...... 60 5.2.1. The Guerrilla Approach – Interview with former Minister of Culture Mr. Branislav Lečić ...... 65 5.2.2. Conclusion ...... 70
1 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.3. Period 2004-2007...... 72 5.3.1. Knight Strojimir’s Ring – Interview with former Minister of Culture Mr. Dragan Kojadinović ...... 75 5.3.2. Conclusion ...... 80
5.4. Period 2007-2008...... 82 5.4.1. Every Citizen is a Cultural Diplomat – Interview with former Minister of Culture Mr. Vojislav Brajović ...... 86 5.4.2. Conclusion ...... 90
5.5. Period 2008-2011...... 92 5.5.1. Serbia in the World – Interview with Mr. Zoran Hamović, former special advisor of former Minister of Culture Mr. Nebojša Bradić ...... 95 5.5.2. Conclusion ...... 100
5.6. Period 2011-2012...... 102 5.6.1. Go back to the beginning and start again – Interview with Mr. Predrag Marković, former Minister of Culture ...... 105 5.6.2. Conclusion ...... 109
VI Conclusions and final considerations ...... 111 6.1. Main conclusions ...... 113 6.2. Possible topics for further research ...... 119 6.3. Recommendations and Final remarks ...... 120
VII Bibliography ...... 124
VIII Annexes ...... 129 Annex I – Official answer from the Ministry of Culture ...... 129 Annex II – List of interviewees and contacts ...... 131 Annex III – Press Clipping ...... 132
IX Author’s biography ...... 148
2 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Abstract
Cultural diplomacy in 21st century has completely new and innovative role in international politics in comparison with some earlier periods in history. Often considered as tool for promotion and influence of one’s country in the world, the notion of cultural diplomacy in Serbia is an important issue which seems not to cause much debates or systematic actions in governmental bodies that should be responsible for conducting it. Ministry of Culture in this sense has responsibility for formulating and conducting (in cooperation with other governmental bodies) cultural diplomacy policy.
This master thesis is based on the body of research of many authors who contributed to relevant researches in the field of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation, e.g. J. Batora, R. Berenson, J. Grossberg, J. Gienow-Hecht, N. Snow, C. P. Schneider, J. Nye, etc.
A significant source of information regarding strategies and policies of Serbian Ministry of Culture in terms of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation is gathered through interviews with all Ministers of Culture from research period. Also, available official governmental and ministry reports will provide insight in instruments and measures used by the Ministry in the research period.
This thesis will continue attempts that have already been undertaken in exploring the field of cultural diplomacy and try to provide further inputs for debate on importance of cultural diplomacy in Serbia. The research will be conducted on several levels with an interdisciplinary approach. The research methods used during research will be carried through in order to confirm or reject settled hypotheses1.
What is the role of cultural diplomacy in modern Serbian state? Does it even exist in a systematic, think-through way? How the attitudes towards the role of cultural diplomacy changed during the past twelve years in Serbia, since democratic changes? How the state can improve its positioning in process of EU integrations by using tools of cultural diplomacy? Is it even necessary to create cultural diplomacy strategy in this sense? Is government aware of all possibilities that can be used in this process? What’s the plan of action in terms of cultural diplomacy? Is there any?
1 See page 21 3 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Following master thesis is trying to reveal and answer to above set questions in order to find out how Serbia’s attitudes are formulated around the concept of cultural diplomacy through work of Ministry of Culture in period 2001-2012.
Key words: cultural diplomacy, cultural policy, international cultural cooperation, Serbian Ministry of Culture, political changes, cultural changes
4 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Le résumé
Dans le 21ème siècle, la diplomatie culturelle a obtenu un tout nouveau rôle au sein de la politique internationale. Un concept considéré comme un outil essentiel pour la promotion d’un pays et pour l’exerce d’influence dans le monde, la notion de diplomatie culturelle en Serbie quand même reste sans débat public et sans actions systématiques du gouvernement. On se pose la question si la diplomatie culturelle en Serbie est perçue d’une manière systématique, dans le cadre des politiques publiques, au cours des douze dernières années en Serbie après les changements «démocratiques». Notre travail essaie d’identifier la position du gouvernement envers la diplomatie culturelle et si le gouvernement a (eu) un plan d’action et lequel. On veut répondre à la question s’il est nécessaire d’avoir une stratégie culturelle; notamment pour le positionnement de la Serbie au sein de processus d’intégration européenne. On questionne l’expertise du gouvernement dans la matière et la conscience des acteurs politiques du potentiel de la diplomatie culturelle. Notre mémoire tente de révéler et de répondre aux questions ci-dessus et de comprendre la position gouvernementale autour du concept de la diplomatie culturelle à travers le travail du Ministère de la Culture dans le période 2001-2012.
Les objectifs de la recherche
Notre recherche a pour l’intention d’identifier, d’examiner, d’évaluer et de comparer les stratégies de la diplomatie culturelle en Serbie par le chemin d’analyse du travail du Ministère de la Culture dans le période 2001-2013. Cette période était choisi parce qu’il marque le temps après les changements démocratiques. Ces changements ont eu lieu dans l’an 2000 et elles marquent le début des efforts considérables prises pour réintroduire la Serbie dans la communauté internationale, après les périodes des guerres et ravages dans l’ex Yougoslavie.
Les objectifs spécifiques de la recherche sont:
- L’identification, l’analyse et l’épreuve du façon dans lequel la diplomatie culturelle et les politiques culturelles internationales étaient conduites dans le période 2001-2013 à travers les activités du Ministère de la Culture;
- La découverte des modèles, motifs et politiques de la diplomatie culturelle;
5 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
- L’analyse et la comparaison des modèles des politiques culturelles internationales à travers cinq mandats des différents Ministères de la Culture dans le période 2001-2013;
- La détermination des recommandations pour formuler les éléments basiques d’un nouvel, durable modèle de la politique culturelle internationale.
Cadres théoriques et conceptuelles
Notre mémoire se base sur les recherches de nombreuses théorétiques qui ont travaillée dans les champs de la diplomatie culturelle et la coopération culturelle internationale, i.e. J. Batora, R. Berenson, J. Grossberg, J. Gienow-Hecht, N. Snow, C. P. Schneider, J. Nye, etc2.
La source important de l’information concernant les stratégies et les politiques du Ministère de la Culture de la Serbie, dans les termes de la diplomatie culturelle et la coopération culturelle internationale, étaient les entretiens avec tous les ministres de la culture de la période recherchée. Aussi, on a utilisé tous les documents officiels disponibles, comme un outil d’analyse des instruments et mesures utilisés par le Ministère.
Ce mémoire essaie de continuer les efforts de la recherche dans la diplomatie culturelle et d’apporter des nouvelles contributions pour la discussion sur l’importance de la diplomatie culturelle en Serbie. La recherche est conduite sur quelques niveaux avec une approche interdisciplinaire.
Les hypothèses
L’hypothèse centrale
La diplomatie culturelle et la coopération culturelle internationale du Ministère de la Culture de la Serbie sont dans la plupart conduite sans modèles et stratégies, sans les instruments et les mesures convenables. Dans la période recherchée, les activités du Ministère, dans le sens de la diplomatie culturelle et la coopération culturelle internationale, étaient intermittent et réactives, sans initiative et sans un cadre précis.
2 La liste compréhensive se trouve dans la Bibliographie, p. 124 6 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Les hypothèses d’appui
1) Les activités, les mesures et les instruments de la diplomatie culturelle et la coopération culturelle internationale dépendent sur les personnalités et les initiatives individuelles du ministre de la culture actuel, pendant que la politique culturelle internationale dépend sur la direction des ministres et leurs motivations personnelles et leur attachement.
2) Les mécanismes pour la coopération entre les départements du Ministère de la Culture et du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères n’existent pas. Dans l’identification et le développement des politiques culturelles internationales, les deux ministères ne sont pas synchronisés dans les activités et dans les politiques (les politiques culturelles également que les politiques internationales), dans les mesures et les instruments de la diplomatie culturelle et la coopération culturelle internationale.
3) Il n’existe pas une relation active et systématique entre le Ministère de la Culture et l’Assemblée Nationale de la Serbie. Le parlement ne participe pas dans la détermination des stratégies et des directions pour la diplomatie culturelle; cette question est rarement ou presque jamais sur l’ordre du jour du parlement.
Les conclusions
Malgré les obstacles lesquelles on a confronté dans la recherche, notamment concernant l’accès aux documents officiels obstrué par les institutions, c’est possible de tirer des conclusions quels nous emmènent vers les problèmes concrètes. Ici on donne leur élaboration théorétique et leur considération dans un contexte interdisciplinaire.
- La diplomatie culturelle du Ministère de la Culture de la Serbie est sous-développée et peu systématique. La notion de la diplomatie culturelle est superficiellement comprise par les fonctionnaires publiques qui prennent les décisions. La diplomatie culturelle en Serbie est entendue dans le sens traditionnel et elle est perçue plutôt comme la promotion de l’art serbe ; la promotion de l’héritage serbe à l’étrangère et l’effort pour améliorer l’image du pays à l’internationale.
- Sur la base des analyses des documents et le faite que le Ministère de la Culture n’a pas adopté aucune stratégie dans la période observée, les activités dans le champ de la diplomatie
7 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
culturelle étaient largement passives. Dans les cas rares proactifs, les initiatives étaient individuelles, isolées et sporadiques.
- Dans les conversations avec les anciens ministres de la culture et leurs associés, on a conclu que les préférences individuelles et l’autorité des ministres ont guidé les activités dans la coopération culturelle internationale. Cette situation confirme que les stratégies de la diplomatie culturelle, s’ils existaient, ont dépendu du savoir personnel, de la motivation et de l’intérêt du ministre en question et ses associés. L’ensemble du gouvernement n’a pas eu une influence sur les politiques.
- La coopération interdépartementale, entre les ministères de la culture et les ministères des affaires étrangères, n’existaient pas en termes des politiques précises et des procédures pour achever les résultats désirés. Les contactes personnelles entre les ministres et leurs associés étaient la seule procédure par laquelle on a observé la coopération. Les politiques culturelles et internationales restent séparées et incohérentes. La politique internationale de la Serbie n’a pas reconnu la diplomatie culturelle comme un des instruments pour mis en place d’agenda internationale du gouvernement. La diplomatie culturelle en Serbie est perçue seulement comme une tâche du Ministère de la Culture, séparée du politique internationale.
- Par l’analyse dont on a conduit, une stratégie de la diplomatie culturelle n’a jamais été proposé par le Ministère de la Culture ni à gouvernement ni au parlement. Quelques stratégies étaient discutées au sein du Ministère, dans une manière plutôt non officielle. Toutes ces activités stratégiques dans la période observée étaient arbitraires. La communication entre le Ministère de la Culture et l’Assemblé Nationale de la Serbie sont utilisés de façon routinière. Par un témoignage d’une fonctionnaire du parlement, même les rapports annuels n’étaient pas toujours soumis et même si oui, le parlement ne les a pas archivées. Malheureusement, cette information donne une image générale de la situation des institutions nationales en Serbie – les règles et les procédures déterminées ne sont pas toujours suivis, même si prescrites par la loi.
- Les cadres théorétiques de la diplomatie culturelle au sein du Ministère de la Culture restent ignorés et inappliqués. Notre mémoire démontre que les conditions politiques générales en Serbie influencent fortement le travail du Ministère.
- Pendant notre recherche, on n’a pas réussi de trouver des interlocuteurs qui ont participés dans les activités de la diplomatie culturelle pendante toute la période observée. Par suite, on
8 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 n’a pas réussi de trouver des interlocuteurs qui pourraient donner leurs opinions sur le développement des politiques du Ministère dans ce regard. Certainement, ce fait a influencé les résultats et la qualité de notre recherche. Egalement, l’impossibilité de gagner l’accès aux tous les documents pertinentes nous a aussi empêcher d’améliorer la qualité de notre recherche.
- La conclusion générale de notre recherche montre que le Ministère de la Culture de la Serbie indique une approche peu systématique, individuelle et réactive envers les activités culturelles quelles font partie de la dimension internationale de la politique culturelle. Les fonctionnaires publiques ne montrent pas une conscience claire des concepts de la diplomatie culturelle. Les relations culturelles internationales ne font pas une priorité pour le Ministère de la Culture de la Serbie, ni pour l’ensemble de son gouvernement.
Mots clés: la diplomatie culturelle, politique culturelle, la coopération culturelle internationale, Ministère de la Culture Serbe, les changements politiques, les changements culturels
9 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
I Introduction
“We observe nowadays that “culture” attracts the attention of men of politics: not that politicians are always “men of culture”, but that “culture” is recognized both as an instrument of policy, and as something desirable which it is the business of the State to promote. We not only hear, from high political quarters, that “cultural relations” between nations are of great importance, but find that bureaux are founded, and officials appointed, for the express purpose of attending to these relations, which are presumed to foster international amity. The fact that culture has become, in some sense a department of politics, should not obscure in our memory the fact that at other periods politics has been an activity pursued within a culture, and between representatives of different cultures”.
T. S. Eliot, Notes towards the Definition of Culture, 1948
We live in an increasingly globalized world, in which the means of mass communication technology ensures that we all have greater access to each other than ever before. It is easy to communicate, much easier than ever in history of our world. Therefore, importance of cultural diplomacy as crucial tool for promoting and fostering peaceful and mutual cooperation and understanding is maybe more important than ever. Institute for Cultural Diplomacy based in Berlin named these principles as crucial principles of cultural diplomacy today: “Respect and Recognition of Cultural Diversity & Heritage; Global Intercultural Dialogue; Justice, Equality & Interdependence; The Protection of International Human Rights; Global Peace & Stability”3. When learned and applied at all levels, cultural diplomacy possesses the unique ability to influence global public opinion and ideology of individuals, communities, cultures or nations, which can accelerate the realization of the principles above. By accomplishing the first principle, one enables the second, which in turn enables the third and fourth until the fifth ultimate principle of global peace and stability is achieved.
3 Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) www.culturaldiplomacy.org, accessed on 08-06-2013 10 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Cultural diplomacy in 21st century has completely new and innovative role in international politics in comparison with some earlier periods in history. Cultural diplomacy or “projection of soft power” as J. Nye4 understood it, today plays an important role in public diplomacy of every sovereign country. Its contribution to international politics is strengthened by the rise of different actors in political sphere. Putting aside, but only for the time being, the discussions about the term public diplomacy and its meaning, we recall the definition of Nancy Snow5 who classified diplomatic work into three categories based upon actors involved, e.g. participants in diplomatic communication. Those categories are: 1) ‘government to government’; 2) ‘government to public’; 3) ‘public to public’. Every powerful and influential country in the world pays much attention on activities that can be described as measures and instruments of cultural diplomacy. More interestingly, a lot of less politically and economically powerful countries by instruments that cultural diplomacy provides try to improve their position on world political scene. Why is it important? What change does cultural diplomacy bring? The changes in modern age, in different social and political areas, stress the rise of new dynamic of international relations. New technologies emphasize the importance of exchanging information and the information flow became the crucial element of politics at the beginning of the 21st century.
On the other hand, the dialogue between subjects in international relations has become more direct, so actors must decide how to adapt and adjust to the new circumstances, while the new participants are appearing all the time. Cultural diplomacy is one of the most common paradigms of modern international relations and communication today; it is a specialization of international politics. This fact can raise the question: how culture with all of its various activities and products can be conceptualized as a mean of foreign policies of states in their positioning on world level?
Moving from world level to more focused one: the European Union. European project embodied in the EU, created new forms of managing international relations, institutional and practical innovations, in such matter which remains unseen in history of politics. Relations between states and their citizens in terms of communication and cultural exchange rely on the nature of EU construction. Although the realistic, interstate view of European integrations demands analysis of diplomacy in traditional meaning, it is important to say that the idea that
4 Nye, J.S., Power in the Global Information Age, Routledge, New York, 2004, pp. 81-90 5 Snow, N., Rethinking Public Diplomacy, in: Snow, N., Taylor, P. M., Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, New York, Routledge, 2009, pp. 6. 11 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
EU can become supranational political entity also requires focusing the attention on European culture and identity. We always have to keep in mind that idea of Europe as the unique political and cultural space does not imply the creation of supranational European culture, which would be uniformed and separated from its components (local, regional, ethnical, linguistic…). Anthony Giddens (Giddens, 2007) said that “cultural integration is one of the main challenges of Europe in 21st century. (…) Even if it is not rational to strive for supranational European culture, it is certainly possible to consider Europe as a cultural and political frame that includes different elements”.6 Cultural diplomacy can also play significant role in European integration process serving as a tool for making integration more legitimate, changing foreign public opinions towards countries in question, but also bringing domestic public consciousness towards acknowledgment that politically connected Europe is not equal to cultural diminution of members’ states.
The possible role of cultural diplomacy in modern international relations in Western Balkans, especially in terms of European integrations which is proclaimed as main political goal of all countries in the region, remains underdeveloped and often neglected.
Some of the research questions of this master thesis coincide with relevant questions in discussions about the role of cultural diplomacy in Serbia today: What is the role of cultural diplomacy in modern Serbian state? Does it even exist in a systematic, think-through way? Is cultural diplomacy, and why, important for Serbia’s positioning on European and world level? What are the measures and instruments implied in that sense? For who and from whom? How the attitudes towards the role of cultural diplomacy changed during the past twelve years in Serbia, since democratic changes? How the state can improve its positioning in process of EU integrations by using means of cultural diplomacy? Is it even necessary to create cultural diplomacy strategy in this sense? Is government aware of all possibilities that can be used in this process? What’s the plan of action in terms of cultural diplomacy? Is there any?
Current political situation and climate in Serbia implies that processes of EU integration and reforms on general level are speeding up. The events from late April7 and June8 2013 showed
6 Giddens, A., Europe in the Global Age, Polity Press Cambridge, 2007, pp. 267-269 7 Recommendation of European Commission to the EU Council to start negotiation process on membership of Serbia in the EU. 8 Recommendation of the EU Council to European Commision to start negotiation process on membership of Serbia in the EU in the late 2013 or early 2014. 12 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
that doors to EU for Serbia are opening and that the country is finally stepping up on its way to EU membership. Experience of other member states showed that in these circumstances, all means of public diplomacy should be put in power along with other political and other instruments.
In that sense, it is very important to investigate have the governmental bodies prepared strategy for cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation that can be put in power during the long process of negotiation with the EU and how that could help in overall process of integration and improve the negotiation itself. For this research it’s important to find out is there any model and strategy of and for cultural diplomacy in general, as well is there a clear sense of how Serbia could use the power of cultural diplomacy in international relations and in its efforts to become a EU member state. ■
13 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
II Theory, Methodology and Hypotheses
“It rained for weeks and we were all so tired of ontology, but there didn't seem to be much else to do.”
Jerry A. Fodor, Fodor's Guide to Mental Representation, 1985
Phenomena that this research is dealing with are part of complex concepts which are subject of research in many different fields. In that sense, framework of this research is dispersive, but only in sense that guarantees interdisciplinarity of research. Cultural diplomacy is, among others branches of science, subject of humanities, political and cultural studies, international relations, etc. A large number of authors gave their contribution in very vivid discussion platforms which deal with notion of cultural diplomacy. Why this subject nowadays became so important for the researches and experts from so many different fields? Some authors state that reemerging of theoretical and practical discussions regarding cultural diplomacy are supported by events and phenomena which are mainly from political domain. Hyungseok Kang for example argues that in the past decade, many professionals and more importantly, many governments in the world have increasingly started to pay attention to the practice of cultural diplomacy.
Kang (Kang, 2013) writes: „Cultural diplomacy isn’t a new concept, but it has merited more recognition through the emergence of cultural dimensions of international relations and development discourses. Furthermore, combining cultural diplomacy with the concept of soft power after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in the USA, have vitalized the field.“9 On the other hand, authors like Ruth Berenson and Josh Grossberg question this notion on importance of 9/11 event outside America and its allies. They state (Berenson, Grossberg, 2007): „We are concerned with ways that diplomatic mechanisms, particularly American ones, operate – what we now refer to as “cultural diplomacy.” How “soft power” is used to promote the virtues of democracy and freedom to prevail over terror, and how successful an
9 Kang, H., Reframing Cultural Diplomacy: International Cultural Politics of Soft Power and the Creative Economy, King’s College London, 2013, p. 1 14 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
effort that is. We must define what we mean by democracy and freedom and whether the American perception of these terms is exportable to different cultures. “10
It is notorious, however, that in the past decade there was visible raise of importance of cultural dimensions in analyzing the complexity of international affairs. Cultural diplomacy emphasizes the influence that transnational flows have on shaping national identities and foreign perceptions of it. Therefore, many respected authors attribute cultural diplomacy significant importance in international relations; one of them is Joseph Nye (Nye, 2004) saying that „cultural diplomacy represents the projection of soft power“11. Peter Van Ham also commented (Van Ham, 2010) that „in an information age, it is often the side which has the better side of the story that wins,”12 in other words, the cultural diplomacy can be used as a powerful tool with high potential in international relations; when country can use its culture to create a brand for itself which represents positive values and image.
Cultural diplomacy is by some authors preached as valuable tool in new environment of international relations especially after Cold War; Walter Laqueur (Laqueur, 1994) states: „In facing these new dangers, a re-examination of old priorities is needed. Cultural diplomacy, in the widest sense, has increased in importance, whereas traditional diplomacy and military power are of limited use in coping with most of these dangers.“13
There are also those authors who confront that point of view, such as Raj Isar (Isar, 2010) who states „Too much is expected of cultural diplomacy today, that it is pressed into service in the name of goods that it cannot deliver”14.
All these discourses surrounding cultural diplomacy have significantly transformed the relationship between culture and government over the past few decades. The cultural dimension has been increasingly incorporated in social, political, and economic agendas of governments. This has resulted in institutional and policy approaches serving a diverse array of national interests in local, national, and international contexts. As Kang (Kang, 2013)
10 Berenson, R., Grossberg J., Lying abroad: A critical study of cultural diplomacy, Arts Management Program, University at Buffalo, Merrill Press, 2007, p. 4 11 Nye, J.S., Power in the Global Information Age, Routledge, New York, 2004, pp. 81-90. 12 Van Ham, P, Place Branding: The State of the Art, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, 2008, pp. 127-133 13 Laqueur, W., Save Public Diplomacy, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1994, vol.73, no.5, p.20. 14 Isar, Y.R., Cultural Diplomacy: An Overplayed Hand?, Cultural Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy Magazine, Winter 2010, USC Centre for Public Diplomacy, pp. 29-44. 15 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
states combining the concepts of Yudice, Bourdieu and Nye: „Culture is now widely adopted as a resource (Yudice), capital (Bourdieu), and power (Nye).“15 UNESCO and Council of Europe highlighted the greater need for intercultural dialogue (UNESCO, 2010; Council of Europe, 2001), which comes in addition to Feigenbaum opinion (Feigenbaum, 2001) that today, “cultural awareness of other peoples and nations is essential to international cooperation and successful commerce”16. Cultural diplomacy is therefore operating within a wider context of globalization and growing cultural dimensions of national interests.
When it comes to the Western Balkans region, and especially Serbia, which is in focus of this research, it is important to emphasize that there is lack of institutional, state-based logic in understanding the importance of the concept of cultural diplomacy although there is significant academic efforts in the scientific community to approach question of cultural diplomacy in an effective, model-suggesting way. For the purposes of this research, research and analysis of domestic authors are also used in efforts to understand main logic behind government actions towards cultural diplomacy. In that sense, work of authors such as Milena Dragićević-Šešić, Ljiljana Rogač, Vesna Đukić are also taken into account. This is done in order to understand the main political and ideological concepts that are behind existing policy models or reasons for non existence of some cultural policy models or non existence of defined cultural policy at all in Serbia. As J. Batore explained (Batora, Mokre, 2001) talking about Milena Dragićević-Šesić’s research that was included in the book Culture and External relations: „Dragićević-Šešić shows that internal cultural agents in Serbia operate according to two basic and possibly contradictory dynamics: the dynamics of Europeanization and the dynamics of a re-nationalization of culture. The first one was ironically named ‘self-colonization’, the second one is based on nationalism and national, ethnocentric cultural policy. Serbian cultural policies toward the world reflect this dichotomy.“17
The overlapping of Europeanization and re-nationalization processes in Serbian society aren't new, on contrary, this war between these two concepts is dating way back in history, more about that could be found in work of prominent historians such as Latinka Perović who claim
15 Kang, H., Reframing Cultural Diplomacy: International Cultural Politics of Soft Power and the Creative Economy, King’s College London, 2013, p. 4 16 Feigenbaum, H., Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy, Arts, Culture & the National Agenda Issue Paper, Centre for Arts and Culture, 2001 17 Batora, J., Mokre, M., Culture and External Relations, Europe and Beyond, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011, p. 3 16 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
that this war had begun in 19th century, before Serbia gained its independence and that “all political, cultural and other disputes in Serbian politics started on the crossroad between nationalism and modernism where political elites stand until today”18. On the other hand, prominent German historian Holm Sundhaussen in his study19 found that these two main flows in Serbian political, social and cultural life are to be found even before 19th century. Continuous clash between these two main flows in Serbian politics, especially in the last decade, are crucial for understanding the policy models behind all aspects of Serbian politics in general, and so of cultural diplomacy of Serbian state.
Although strong tool for international politics even before that, cultural diplomacy became a specialization of international politics in the world after the Cold War, and after 9/11 it became an even more important topic in international relations among states of the world, governments all around the world started paying much more attention to activities of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation. The intention of this research is to examine how modern Serbian state in the past decade dealt with this very important concept of cultural and foreign policy.
18 Perović, L., (Zlo)upotrebe Španskog građanskog rata i Drugog svetskog rata na prostoru Jugoslavije, Statement at International forum on historical revisionism, Belgrade, 2013 19 Sundhaussen, H., Istorija Srbije od 19. do 21. veka, Clio, Belgrade, 2007 17 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
2.1. Goals and objectives of research
The research aims to identify, examine, evaluate and compare cultural diplomacy strategies in Serbia examining work of Ministy of Culture in Serbia in period 2001-2013 in order to be able to analyze and comment on quality of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation since 2000. This period is chosen because it marks the time after democratic changes in the year 2000 when significant efforts were udertaken in order to reintroduce Serbia into international community after the period of wars and devastation in the former Yugoslavia.
In relation to all mentioned above, the specific goals of this research are:
1. Research will identify, analyze and examine how international cultural policy was conducted in period 2001-2013, through activities of Ministry of Culture;
2. Research should discover if there were any models, patterns and policies of cultural policies, or more specifically international cultural cooperation which were used in period 2001-2013;
3. Research should analyze and compare models of international cultural policies through five mandates of different Ministries of Culture from period 2001-2013;
4. Research should determine recommendations in terms of formulating basic elements for the new, sustainable model of international cultural policy.
18 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
2.2. Research and conceptual framework
This master thesis will be based on the body of research covering the topic of cultural diplomacy in general by experts in the field e.g. J. Batora, R. Berenson, J. Grossberg, J. Gienow-Hecht, N. Snow, C. P. Schneider, J. Nye, etc20.
A significant source of information regarding strategies and policies of domestic Ministry of Culture in terms of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation will be gathered through interviews with all Ministers of Culture from research period. Also, available official governmental and ministry reports will provide insight in instruments and measures used in the research period so the realistic analysis could be made. More on techniques of analysis and problems encountered in gathering official reports and data from the Ministry can be found in section 5.1. Introduction and Important Annotations on page 62.
This thesis will continue attempts that have been already undertaken in exploring the field of cultural diplomacy and try to provide further inputs for debate on importance of cultural diplomacy. The research will be conducted on several levels with an interdisciplinary approach. First part of research will consist of desk research, i.e. analyzing theoretical background on topic of cultural diplomacy and its importance in modern world as well as different case studies which might help in better understanding of how measures of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation could be used. This will include research of online and off-line resources (web portals, directories, academic texts, publications and reports relevant to the topic). This will help in creating set of criteria for later investigative part on effects of Serbian cultural diplomacy policy. The next part of research will consist of analysis based on interviews with former officials. Criterion for selection of informants21 is based on their relevance and participation in processes and activities that crucially influenced cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation during period that is under research.
Namely, we will interview all five former Ministers of Culture from period in question. Also, we will try to make a contact with other relevant government officials both old and new ones, with special interest on those who are permanently employed in Ministry of Culture through- out the research period. This will be done in order to get insight from professionals who survived all political changes and consequently, changes of formations of Ministry of Culture.
20 A more comrpehensive list can be found in Bibliography on page 124 21 For full list of contacts and interviewees see Annex II on page 131 19 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Beside interviews, we will analyze most important policy documents issued by the Ministry. The next part of research will consist of analyzing available official data which consist of: available documents with results and activities of different policies from research period, e.g. policy documents, reports on progress, strategies, etc; from interviews it will be possible to draw conclusions on different questions which will provide clear sense of attitudes towards the topic.
This will be done in order to examine what types of policy models existed in research period and what are its effects. Finally, following the collection and analyses of all findings during research, the adequate set of recommendations for potential policy models will be produced.
20 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
2.3. Main and supporting hypotheses
The research is based on the following hypotheses.
Main hypothesis
Cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation of Ministry of Culture of Republic of Serbia are conducted routinely, without clear model, strategy, set of instruments and measures. In period that is under research, activities conducted by the Ministry in terms of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation are sporadic and reactionary, without self-initiative and clear framework.
Supporting hypothesis 1
Activities, measures and instruments of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation in large part depend on personalities and initiatives of current Minister of Culture, while international cultural policy depends on leadership of Ministers and their personal motivation and devotion.
Supporting hypothesis 2
There is no clearly set mechanism for interdepartmental cooperation between Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Foreign Affairs in defining and conducting international cultural policy; these two Ministries do not conduct synchronized activities and policies (cultural and foreign policy) in terms of measures and instruments in cultural diplomacy/international cultural cooperation.
Supporting hypothesis 3
There is no active and systematic relationship which would provide governmental bodies to direct cultural policy; cultural diplomacy is rare or never on agenda of the Ministry of Culture which doesn’t make any framework in order to conduct cultural diplomacy/international cultural cooperation. ■
21 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
III Cultural Diplomacy in Theory and Practice
Is cultural diplomacy contradiction in terms – an incongruous conjunction?(…) Cultural diplomacy is not of one kind – sometimes it meant simply disseminating information about one culture to the other; sometimes it is about exchanging cultural perspectives; sometimes it is about training a foreign citizenship in cultural ways of dominant nation (colonialism)(…) Politicians of all creeds agree that cultural diplomacy is important, and all seem to believe that their own cultural diplomacy is achieving results that they want, but there is little serious research being done on whether this is actually so. (…) What is ‘cultural diplomacy’? Does it ever really work?
Ruth Berenson, Lying Abroad: a critical study of cultural diplomacy, 2007
3.1. Conceptual considerations on cultural diplomacy
As stated earlier, cultural diplomacy is not a new phenomenon. Because it has been present and active in the world of politics and culture, in one form or another, under one name or another for a long period of time, the meaning of cultural diplomacy today has to be closely investigated.
Before switching to the research of this work it makes sense to make an effort in defining the cultural diplomacy itself. Even though the term itself causes a lot of curiosity and speculation, we are able to provide quite specific definitions. However, considering that terms ‘culture’ and ‘diplomacy’ are not completely self-explanatory, a definition of the two terms would provide better evidence how they work in conjunction.
It is impossible to come up with one, final definition of culture. Numerous definitions of culture suggest its importance in a society and show the need for constant redefining of the
22 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
definition.22 For the purposes of this master thesis we will not embark in research on term of culture in detail. We’ll use the definition and interpretation of culture as stated in Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies from the year 1982 where culture is defined as: “Culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs.”23
As for the term diplomacy, it would also be very difficult and over-simplified to attempt to define diplomacy with one single definition since numerous distinguished political scientists have tried to provide definition of the term. The most simple or better said, the least complex definition, defines diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy used in order to achieve certain goals considered to be vital to a state. It is a peaceful means of achieving goals through established diplomatic routes through the use of certain accredited agents. Harold Nicolson defines diplomacy as “an ordered conduct of relations between one group of human beings and another group alien to themselves“24. He also elaborates this definition by calling it “the need to be informed of the ambitious, weaknesses and resources of those with whom one hopes to deal”25. We will use these guidelines for defining and understanding diplomacy that are going in direction of notion that diplomacy is considered as art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements; tact and skill in dealing with people.
Concepts and notions behind terms culture and diplomacy, make a perfectly easy misunderstood match. When put together in one term, cultural diplomacy, they create a notion that is “both descriptive and judgmental”26, which only further complicates efforts of defining it. “When the two words (culture and diplomacy) are joined, possible meanings and potential for misunderstanding and confusion multiply disproportionately. It might be that it is not altogether clear which word modifies the other. Depending on where we put the stress,
22 A borad overview of definitions of culture for example can be found in Božović, R., Leksikon kulturologije, Beograd, 2006. 23 As seen at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php- URL_ID=12762&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, accessed on 13-07-2013 24 Nicolson, H., Diplomacy, London, Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 17 25 Ibid, p. 25 26 Berenson, R., Grossberg J., Lying abroad: A critical study of cultural diplomacy, Arts Management Program University at Buffalo, Merrill Press, 2007, p. 7 23 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
the term “cultural diplomacy” can refer to sophisticated diplomatic legerdemain, or to a tactful and relatively painless way of re-ordering the values and beliefs of a society.”27
Cultural diplomacy has nothing to do with diplomacy instruments used in relationships between diplomats and government representatives. But it has much to do with the fact that it describes various modes of cultural exchange when trying to, for example, negotiate a treaty, make an alliance or achieve further understanding of another country. It is not limited to a certain space or time, though it has to involve a ‘dialogue’ of all specific parties involved on a subject that concern culture-related issues. Foreign policy is about promoting and defending interests and values of one country in the rest of the world, while, as Helmut K. Anheiner said: “Cultural diplomacy is understood as the promotion of mutual understanding through cultural exchange.”28
The term itself isn’t much in use by governments in the world. In fact, only France actually uses term cultural diplomacy, while many others use terms like international cultural policy (Sweden, The Netherlands), international cultural relations (UK, Australia), cultural exchange (Japan), etc.
Having in mind semantic and other possible confusions regarding term of cultural diplomacy, we can conclude that cultural diplomacy can be seen as diplomatic practice of governments, carried out in support of a government’s foreign policy goals. In these efforts, direct or indirect involvement of the government’s ministry of foreign affairs and/or ministry of culture/commerce/tourism is enabled, involving a wide range of cultural manifestations of the culture of the state which is represented by the government. It would be easiest to describe cultural diplomacy as a practice of countries who wish to concentrate on promotion of state’s culture, but by that definition we would fail to recognize the cultural diplomacy of parts of countries such as provinces and states, and groups of countries, for example the European Union. Cultural diplomacy is often viewed as an element of public diplomacy, but the scope of cultural diplomacy’s work includes other processes, such as negotiation of cultural agreements. Cultural diplomacy cannot be defined simply as government’s foreign cultural policy; it is much focused than that: cultural diplomacy is a practice supported by
27 Ibid, p. 12 28 Anheiner H., Foundations and Cultural Diplomacy, Panel paper submitted at conference „Culture, politics and cultural politics“, Barcelona, Spain, 2012 24 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
governments, not statement on their international relations policy. Also, cultural diplomacy is equipped with wider focus than foreign policy goals associated with culture.
The objectives of cultural diplomacy vary: frequently cultural diplomacy is viewed as a practice which is undertaken in order to achieve normative, idealistic goals, usually couched in terms of ‘mutual understanding.’ Milton Cummings (Cummings, 2003) provided us with broadly accepted definition of cultural diplomacy which he described as “the exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding’ which ‘can also be more of a one-way street than a two-way exchange, as when one nation concentrates its efforts on promoting the national language, explaining its policies and point of view, or ‘telling its story’ to the rest of the world.”29 Other definitions focus more on the practice’s contribution to advancing national interests, rather than enhancing mutual understanding. For some authors, writing about the practice of cultural diplomacy, crucial is the type of political entity undertaking cultural diplomacy: “independent agencies undertake international cultural relations, governments undertake cultural diplomacy”.30
To conclude – the purpose of cultural diplomacy is found in the results of such undertaking; cultural diplomacy is always concentrated and addressed to people from abroad, who can also be citizens of a state conducting cultural diplomacy, living in a foreign country. “Cultural diplomacy is for the people of a foreign nation to develop an understanding of the nation's ideals and institutions in an effort to build broad support for economic and political goals”31. Cultural diplomacy is a potential powerful tool for familiarizing others with one state’s culture and values; it “includes the exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding.”32
Cultural diplomacy can be considered as deployment of a state’s culture in support of its foreign policy goals. Practice of cultural diplomacy includes negotiation and promulgation of cultural agreements; it is also a diplomatic practice of governments – mostly governments of single states, but it can also be a practice of groups of governments such as the European
29 Cummings, M.C. Jr., Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: a Survey, Center for Arts and Culture, 2003, p.1 30 Mitchell, J. M., International Cultural Relations, Allen and Urwin, 1986, p. 5 31 Maack, N. M., Books and Libraries as Instruments of Cultural Diplomacy in Francophone Africa during the Cold War, Libraries & Culture 36, no. 1, 2001, p. 59. 32 Waller, J. M., Cultural Diplomacy, Political Influence, and Integrated Strategy, in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, Washington, DC, 2009, p. 74. 25 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Union. Cultural diplomacy is carried out in support of a government’s foreign policy goals or its diplomacy, or both. Robert Fox’s argument (Fox, 1999) is worth mentioning – „Cultural diplomacy implies the involvement of government to whatever extent in the business of projecting the nation’s image abroad - is persuasive“.33 In addition to Fox’s argument we recall the arguments of Karen Perez who noted: „Whereas traditional diplomacy tends to rely on intellectual argument to appeal to national interests, cultural diplomacy tends to rely on experience to develop knowledge and understanding. Cultural diplomacy focuses on bringing people together in ways that allow them to explore a perspective different from their own, to develop a mutually understood vocabulary for communicating about different perspectives, and to identify approaches to shared problems.“34 We can conclude that cultural diplomacy implies involvement of the government, but not exclusively, its mission is to make bridges between nations and cultures, creating an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation. To conclude thinking on definition of cultural diplomacy we recall the definition by Dr. Emil Constantinescu, President of the Academy for Cultural Diplomacy (2011 – current) who summarized it in following words: “Cultural diplomacy may best be described as a course of actions, which are based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio- cultural cooperation or promote national interests; Cultural diplomacy can be practiced by either the public sector, private sector or civil society.“
Cultural diplomacy has two dimensions: one is when cultural diplomacy is conducted in the strictest sense – usage of arts and culture as a tool of statecraft, specifically deploying cultural exchanges, artists, and art institutions to advance a nation’s political agenda on the world stage. The second dimension encompasses a wider array of cultural relationships, not necessarily under the direct control of government agencies, but constantly happening between cultural institutions, which, in turn, can be promoted or supported in various ways by states.
33 Fox, R., Cultural Diplomacy at the Crossroads. Cultural Relations in Europe and the Wider World, The British Council, 1999, p. 2 34 Perez, K., Cultural Diplomacy: Nostalgia or New directions, in Berenson, R., Grossberg J., Lying abroad: A critical study of cultural diplomacy, Arts Management Program, University at Buffalo, 2007, p. 65 26 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
3.2. Relation between public and cultural diplomacy
It is important to make a clear differentiation between concepts of public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, and despite the fact that they are compatible on so many levels; they do not carry the same meaning. These two concepts and practices are compatible because they are both involved in management of the international environment and the power dynamics through engagement with a wide range of new social actors. Public and cultural diplomacy aren’t in hierarchical relation as well: “Defining cultural diplomacy as a domain of larger framework of public diplomacy can be misleading, since it often leads to pigeonholing the scope of cultural diplomacy to only include arts diplomacy and civil society cultural exchanges. More importantly, it undermines the complex cultural implications in international relations and the contemporary global political economy.”35
Public diplomacy incorporates a wider set of activities than cultural diplomacy, for example government media and public relations activities aimed at a foreign public in order to explain a course of some action that has been put in place. Cultural diplomacy is sometimes conceived as a part of public diplomacy, but there are a number of other practices which are sometimes used as synonyms for, have a close resemblance to, or overlap with, cultural diplomacy. These include foreign cultural policy, international cultural relations, and soft power. Over the years, the realm of diplomacy has broadened as a result of engagement of many other social actors alongside the government (media, corporations, NGOs, civil society, etc.) Public diplomacy therefore gained much bigger significance in foreign policy agendas; “governments began to utilize public diplomacy as means to cultivate public opinion abroad, furthering the aims and execution of foreign policies”36.
Public diplomacy is defined by some authors (G.D. Malone, 1981) as a common term for public undertaking in the fields of information, education and culture, aimed at fostering positive attitude to one’s country abroad. On the other hand cultural diplomacy has two distinct aspects that differentiate it from public diplomacy: cultural diplomacy underlines the role of culture in relations with other countries through soft power and fosters competitiveness of a country in the global creative economy. The goal of both public and
35 Kang, H., Reframing Cultural Diplomacy: International Cultural Politics of Soft Power and the Creative Economy, King’s College London, 2013, p. 2 36 Cull, N., Public Diplomacy Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase, USC Center on Cultural Diplomacy, 2006 27 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
cultural diplomacy is to present and affect the world with one country’s way of life. Public diplomacy is a two-way street: it represents the process of communication that serves as channel for communicating the image of one’s country, its values, culture, history, etc. to the other nations, but in the same time it is a channel where information flow about others is disseminated to the domestic audience, fostering mutual understanding and friendly coexisting.
Two main components of public diplomacy are policy of information and cultural/educational programs. Cultural and educational diplomacy stress the importance on exchange of individuals and ideas, promoting long term understanding among the nations.
The best method to distinguish cultural diplomacy from public diplomacy is to look its main actors. Richard Arndt (Arndt, 2005) suggests that cultural diplomacy conducts its work through activities of government agents engaged in international cultural policy:
“Most thoughtful cultural diplomats use ‘culture’ as the anthropologists do, to denote the complex of factors of mind and values which define a country or group, especially those factors transmitted b the process of intellect, i.e., by ideas. ‘Cultural relations’ then (and its synonym – at least in the U.S. – ‘cultural affairs’) means literally the relations between national cultures, those aspects of intellect and education lodged in any society that tend to cross borders and connect with foreign institutions. Cultural relations grow naturally and organically, without government intervention – the transactions of trade and tourism, student flows, communications, book circulation, migration, media access, inter-marriage – millions of daily cross-cultural encounters. If that is correct, cultural diplomacy can only be said to take place when formal diplomats, serving national governments, try to shape and channel this natural flow to advance national interests”.37
37 Arndt, R. The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, Potomac Books, 2005, p: xviii 28 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
3.3. How and why cultural diplomacy is maneuvered?
Although closely related to, it is not quite correct to say that cultural diplomacy is an asset of governmental international cultural relations, because not all these relations can be considered as part of cultural diplomacy. Some government actions are undertaken by international cultural relations policy and are not aimed at contributing to foreign policy goals or to diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy is undertaken for a range of purposes. It helps advance national interests, contributes to a government’s diplomacy, and enhances mutual understanding between countries and their citizens. Simon Mark writes: “Cultural diplomacy raises a state’s profile, helps counter negative impacts of contentious issues, ‘puts the record straight’, and is now more frequently implicated in contributing to governmental efforts to ‘brand’ a state. The practice supports efforts to protect a national culture in order to counter the impact of cultural ‘invasion.’ Cultural diplomacy is also undertaken in order to attain domestic objectives”.38 When thinking on model to form and conduct cultural diplomacy, different countries have different approaches and motives for such endeavors. Some use it as a tool of foreign policy, some for leveling-up their image in the world or specific regions or countries, some as propaganda tool. Examples and motives are numerous, but all governments in the world undertake measures of cultural diplomacy for at least one same reason – to promote its culture, its way of life. Gijs de Vries pointed out that “most countries have found that one way of mobilizing their power of attraction is by mobilizing their cultural attractiveness. It is by familiarizing others with one’s own language, films, books, music, architecture, and so on, and with one’s people and their thinking, that countries are often able to touch hearts and minds, and to win friends abroad. Arts and heritage, tangible and intangible, are central to the identity of the nation, and central to how they are perceived by others.” 39 Governments throughout the world pursue programs of cultural diplomacy in an attempt to spread and promote their entire way of life as completely as possible, which they consider more advanced or developed than the others.
When it comes to actors of cultural diplomacy, Yudhishthir Raj Isar (Isar, 2010) writes that the true actors of cultural diplomacy are neither nations, nor people, but rather „government agents and envoys joining nationalism and internationalism and engaging in what Raymond
38 Simon, M., A Comparative Study of the Cultural Diplomacy of Canada, New Zealand and India, University of Auckland, 2008. p. 75 39 Speech at British Council’s Celebration of 75 years of Cultural relations, The Role of Cultural Diplomacy in European Foreign Policy, 2009 29 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Williams calls the practice of ‘cultural policy at display’“40. Based on the development of domestic cultural industries underpinned by politics of identity, cultural diplomacy relates to global competition through two paradigms: soft power (political) and the creative economy (economic). These independent paradigms refer to sociopolitical and economic implications of cultural diplomacy. Culture serves a communicative function of channeling cultural industries texts to foster desirable socio-cultural outcomes amongst foreign citizenry. The way in which ‘culture’ is adopted in practice also differs from state to state. Reasons for states all over the world to conduct cultural diplomacy are numerous. It provides opportunities for practitioners to construct and present version of national and cultural identity abroad that gives impression of a united, culturally rich, well-functioned, political and cultural union of its citizens. Of course, governments tend to present their countries in the best possible light to the foreign audience and to many different target groups. The specific version of national and cultural identity that will be presented through cultural diplomacy has to be highly selective: not every aspect of the state can possibly be included in such an image, even if there was this aim. This as a result has, among other things, a clear presentation on states’ national, political and cultural unity inspired by set of cultural and other values, components which are often considered as part of successful international image of the country in question. Looking from the other angle, this image that is projected abroad has its blowback on the country itself so it can be used as a tool for enhancing national social cohesion and feeling of belonging to the imagined national community. The reaction abroad to the presentation of a version of national identity, when reported back home by the media can be thought of as another form cohesion and felling-good atmosphere among citizens, similarly as national sporting events and successes, political or traditional ceremonies for which country is known for. All these aspects of cultural diplomacy can provide the material which the media often use to give shape to the idea of an imagined community, creating sense of national pride and confidence. On the other hand, governments often rely on that factor, preaching and fostering the feeling of a successful community both abroad and back home. Creating that double loop – projecting desirable image abroad, and in the same time having sort of national-building role back home – enabling state to assert sense of national pride in its history, its achievements and its future prospects – can be considered as ideal for cultural diplomacy’s work in any given country.
40 Isar, Y.R., Cultural Diplomacy: An Overplayed Hand? Public Diplomacy Magazine, Winter 2010, pp. 29-44. 30 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
3.4. Audience, message and tools of cultural diplomacy
The holy trinity of cultural diplomacy and precondition for its success are: 1) clear defining of cultural diplomacy’s audience, 2) message and 3) program tools or instruments. All three components have to be carefully thought through if success in cultural diplomacy is desired. Complexity of the message, its content and many different dimensions, appropriate tool for conveying the meaning and intention of the message to the right audience is considered as perfect scenario for successful cultural diplomacy.
When it comes to the instruments of cultural diplomacy, they are basically part of every country’s culture; its usage is making a difference between presenting them inside the domestic culture in opposition to usage of them outside of it. All tools and instruments of cultural diplomacy should seek to bring understanding of a nation's culture to foreign audiences. They work best when they are proven to be relevant to the target audience, which requires an understanding of the recipient audience. The tools can be utilized not only by government-based factors, it can be utilized as well by working with partners from abroad – NGOs, diaspora and political parties, which may be of crucial help in the challenge of relevance and understanding domestic audience, its way of life, interests, customs. Tools of cultural diplomacy are generally not created by a government, they are produced by the culture and if government succeeds in recognizing them as worthy, than government serves as facilitator for their expression abroad to a foreign audience. John Lenczowski (Lenczowski, 2009) proposes following list41 of tolls of cultural diplomacy. Lenczowski’s list is based on analysis of cultural diplomacy in the United States:
1) The arts (theater, film, ballet, music, the fine arts such as painting and sculpture, and an art that can be considered sui generis: architecture);
2) Exhibitions (offer the potential to showcase numerous objects of culture on a large scale);
3) Educational programs (universities and language teaching programs abroad, dispatching domestic authorities – professors, students, experts; sponsorships, fellowships, scholarships);
4) Exchanges (scientific, artistic, educational etc.);
41 Lenczowski, J., Cultural Diplomacy, Political Influence, and Integrated Strategy, in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, ed. Waller, M, Institute of World Politics Press, 2009, pp. 82-87. 31 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5) Literature (distribution of books and other periodicals, establishment of libraries abroad and translation of popular works in literature);
6) Broadcasting the news and cultural programs (media broadcast of news, government standpoints, music, literature, poetry, historical programs, religious programs, etc.);
7) Gifts to a nation (to demonstrate thoughtfulness and respect to people of the other country);
8) Listening and according respect (getting foreigners’ respect by listening and endeavoring to understand their perspectives);
9) Promotion of ideas (promotion of one country’s system of values, most often: promotion of the inalienable rights of the individual and the source of those rights, the rule of law, democracy, political and economic liberty, freedom of speech and expression, etc.);
10) Promotion of social policies (for example United States had promoted contraception and abortion as part of both a policy of population control and “reproductive rights,” sexual abstinence and marital fidelity, as part of a campaign against HIV/AIDS, women’s rights, etc.);
11) History (dissemination of accurate history facts to populations subjected to intellectual oppression and denied access to a free press, historical archives, and similar);
12) Religious diplomacy (including inter-religious dialogue in order to overcome hostility and mistrust between people of different faith, also used in conflict resolution processes).
Looking upon the list above one could conclude that all these instruments are exclusively used by the governments of countries in the world. However, it is important to emphasize that most ideas that a foreign population observes as a result of cultural diplomacy are not in the government's control. The government does not, and should not, produce books, music, films, TV programs, etc. that reaches the foreign audience. If that is the case, then we’re dealing with propaganda, not cultural diplomacy. Mark Leonard noted: “The most the government can do is try to work to create opening so the message can get through to mass audiences abroad”42. On the other hand, only governments have power and resources in utilizing
42 Leonard, M., Diplomacy by Other Means, Foreign Policy 132, 2002, p. 50. 32 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
agreements and making preconditions for cultural diplomacy or international cultural cooperation to work. Usage of instruments of cultural diplomacy can also cause political problems and counter-effect. From the American experience we’ve learned that cultural diplomacy can also be induced bottom-up, not only by the government, in fact, sometimes it is the case that it is induced as an opposition to official policy. The best example to support this notion is protests of Americans against Iraqi War while official government policy supported it, which in the rest of the world empowered the notion of Americans as nation loyal to peace and democracy, which holds its government accountable for its actions at all times. There is also a danger that cultural diplomacy can make misunderstanding among nations and foster mutual disrespect, the exact opposite of what it is intended to do. These situations occur when cultural diplomacy’s tool/concrete action is controversial or even offensive from other’s culture point of view. The poor choice of measures or not being able to recognize the context and get familiar with the target audience, its customs and culture, often brings this kind of problems to the table. That is why every action and tool used by means of cultural diplomacy has to be thoroughly approached, because sometimes, it can bring more problems than avails. Cultural diplomacy’s tools and their appropriate usage and selection raise one of the most important questions regarding cultural diplomacy – the question of respecting the others: “Central question to cultural diplomacy: to what degree should such diplomacy respect the customs and mores of often fragile foreign cultures and to what extent should it attempt to disrupt these cultural patterns?”43 Effective cultural diplomacy requires a long-term commitment to winning the hearts and minds of people; it is an ongoing activity and requires continuous attention of all actors included in its endeavors if positive results, which are highly difficult to measure, are to be expected. In order to succeed cultural diplomacy’s effectiveness, Karen Perez, talking about US’s cultural diplomacy, suggests that three separate analyses should be done: “1) an understanding of the message(s) conveying state’s interests, 2) an understanding of the audience or audiences, to whom those messages are to be delivered, 3) finding the right mechanism or program tool to convey a particular message to the intended audience.”44
43 Lenczowski, J., Cultural Diplomacy, Political Influence, and Integrated Strategy, in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, ed. Waller, M, Institute of World Politics Press, 2009, p.86 44 Perez, K., Cultural Diplomacy: Nostalgia or New directions, in Berenson, R., Grossberg J., Lying abroad: A critical study of cultural diplomacy, Arts Management Program, University at Buffalo, 2007, p. 66 33 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
3.5. Examples of Good Practices – Sweden, UK, France, Canada
The following breakdown of selected countries profiles regarding their international cultural cooperation is presented in order to inform the reader on some successful practices having in mind following part of this research which will concentrate its attention on Serbia and its international cultural policy. The efforts and resources that formulate their cultural diplomacy strategies in these four countries are incomparably bigger that those in Serbia, so the question of relevance in presenting them may be raised.
Although Serbia can’t be compared with these countries in economic or political sense, we believe that it is important to emphasize some examples of good practices which could serve as an ideal or model to look up to. Decision to present following information was made for two reasons – first, to make the reader aware of successful models and inform on them, and second – to provoke thinking on reasons and preconditions that have to be met so the model for cultural diplomacy/international cultural cooperation can be considered as successful. The following information is provided by Margaret J. Wysyomirski, and it’s gathered in greater detail in her book: International cultural relations: A Multi-country comparison, Centre for Arts and Culture, 2003. Here, we present some of her findings regarding cultural diplomacy/international cultural relations (ICR) in four sample countries: Sweden, United Kingdom, France and Canada. Also, we have consulted publication This is not a report – Cultural exchange Sweden/Serbia 2009-2012 published by Swedish embassy in Belgrade.
Goals and Priorities, as stated in official documents
Sweden seeks to emphasize its international role in both sustainable development (economic, social, democratic, cultural and human) and in cooperative efforts. Cultural attache of Swedish embasy in Belgrade, Helene Larsson, pointed out the importance of international cultural cooperation: “International cultural co-operation can be defined as a sort of interspace between countries, organizations and individuals. It is a field where we have opportunities to reflect on our own lives and what we do in our work. Meetings and co- operation are not always easy to achieve, but it is in meeting others – in conversations, collaborations and in exploring similarities and differences - that we develop as individuals, organizations and institutions. (…) International cultural exchange can provide the input that we need and can create an interspace where ideas and people can develop. One important 34 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
question, in extension, will be how society creates room for what cannot be measured, and makes space for activities that involve risk-taking and that are unpredictable.”45 Swedish approach resulted in very intesive and planned cooperation with Serbian peers, individuals, groups and institutions. Programs of Swedish embassy in Belgrade and its model of conducting cultural diplomacy in Serbia can serve as very good example in Serbia’s efforts to improve its state of cultural diplomacy.
United Kingdom aims to build appreciation of its creativity, scientific innovation and excellence. France seeks to combine its traditional promotion of French culture and language with a new emphasis on its own cultural pluralism and diversity, as well as its commitment to cultural cooperation internationally. France’s stated priorities are cultural: the promotion of the French language, teaching, and quality French cultural offerings. Geographically, it focuses on Africa/North Africa as well as the enlarged European Union. Canada’s priorities include fostering better understanding of Canada, its values, culture and capabilities as well as advancing its foreign policy goals, including not only global peace and security, but prosperity and employment for Canadians. In addition to global interests and given Canada’s dual linguistic identity, it has a special interest in other French speaking countries.
Administrative Structure
Although the Foreign Ministry/Department has primary responsibility for cultural diplomacy, the scope and the actual administration of such activities seems to exhibit four different patterns among these countries.
Sweden’s Foreign Ministry works with the Council for Sweden Promotion Abroad which includes the heads of the Swedish Trade Council, the Invest in Sweden Agency, the Swedish Institute, the Swedish Travel and Tourism Council, the Foreign Ministry’s Director-General for Foreign Trade, and the Head of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Export Promotion and Internal Marketing. The Council is chaired by the Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Information Office. Cultural exchange and co-operation is directed by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and implemented by the public/private organization, the Swedish Institute. The Ministry of Culture's funding role is managed by the National Council for Cultural
45 Larsson, H. (ed.) This is not a report – cultural exchange Sweden/Serbia 2009-2012, Swedesh Embassy, Belgrade, 2012 35 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Affairs (NCCA). Bilateral cultural agreements are orchestrated by the Nordic Council and the Council of the Baltic Sea States. The Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) supports large cultural projects in related areas of foreign affairs, trade, and E/CE and third world development. The Ministry of Trade has an interest in Sweden's cultural industry. NGOs play significant role in exchange and cooperation activities in support of the MFA policy.
In Canada, Foreign Ministry also includes trade responsibilities; cultural diplomacy is likely to include explicit programs that employ culture to promote trade and exports from the cultural industries. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) establishes overall IR policy and strategies, works primarily through the DCH in administering cultural programs, and takes the lead in managing cultural trade initiatives. The Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH) and its agencies are responsible for providing support for the development and coordination of the international agendas for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State under the direction of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. DCH departments include: International Relations and Policy Development Directorate (IRPD) ensures coherence with departmental as well as the Government of Canada's foreign policy and trade objectives; and the Trade and Investment Policy Directorate (TIPD) with its Trade Routes program (seeking to brand Canada).
In the United Kingdom the Ministry of Foreign Affairs largely delegates administration of international cultural relations to quasi-governmental organizations. In the UK, these nonprofit organizations are the British Council and Visiting Arts. In Sweden, the primary nongovernmental agent is the Swedish Institute. In such cases, these organizations have the advantage and responsibility for raising funds in addition to their allocations from the Foreign Ministry. In the case of the British Council, this significantly increases the ICR funding available since the ratio of foreign ministry funds to private funds is 1:2. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for foreign affairs and seeks to increase trade, inward investment tourism, and the influence of UK foreign policy. The FCO works: primarily through the British Council for educational, scientific, and cultural exchange to send UK individuals and groups abroad. Visiting Arts organization tends to bring international cultural and educational visitors into the UK, with collaboration with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and through the British Trade International (BTI). All three of these (FCO,
36 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
DTI, BTI) are also part of the Creative Industries Taskforce. In France, responsibility for cultural diplomacy is primarily lodged in the Foreign Ministry which works through a network of nongovernmental organizations to actually implement cultural diplomacy.
This includes a global system of French Cultural Centers, the Alliance Française language institutes, and the l’Association Française d’Action Artistique (AFAA). France dedicate substantial funding to cultural networks, these nongovernmental organizations augment public money with funds from both private sources and from sources in host countries. The language institutes also generate substantial income in the form of language instruction fees from students. Germany has a similar arrangement working through the Goethe Institute system. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has primary responsibility for cultural diplomacy and manages these program activities through its Department for Cultural Cooperation and the French Language. The Ministry works through three sets of organizations: AFAA (l'Association Francaise d'Action Artistique) for cultural exchanges; Alliance Francaise for language programs, and French Cultural Centers (a set of 151). The Ministry of Culture and Communications also provides funds for international exchanges. The regions and departments are becoming a more important source of support as well.
Program Tools
While the specific program names vary from country to country, a set of activities that constitute a cultural diplomacy repertoire has been identified and is found in various combinations in each of the sample countries. This repertoire of program tools includes the following:
• the exchange of individuals for educational and cultural purposes; • sending exhibitions and performances abroad; • sponsoring seminars and conferences both in-country and abroad that include international participants; • support for language studies programs and institutions; • support for infrastructure in the form of cultural institutes/centers/forum abroad; • resources in the form of staff and personnel (both at home and abroad); • support for country studies programs (e.g., American studies, Austrian studies, etc.); • international cooperation on cultural programs and projects; • activities that are related to trade in cultural products and services.
37 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Funding
The largest programmatic funding allocation in all four countries supports the exchange of individuals and events. Perhaps the most telling figure is the per capita spending for each country. France has the highest per capita spending at $17.57, the next biggest is Canada at $3.66, which is four times less. Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom spend approximately the same amount on international cultural relations. These countries are not only quite different, but also bring different goals and priorities to their conduct of cultural diplomacy.
On all measures, France is the leader in supporting cultural diplomacy activities, with the United Kingdom ranking in second place and third in per capita spending. Canada ranks second in terms of per capita spending but fourth on total identified public spending and eighth in total foreign ministry spending. ■
38 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
IV Short Historical Overview of Cultural Policy in Serbia
In our efforts to understand foreign cultural policy and consequently cultural diplomacy in Serbia today, which we will try to do in the next chapter of this research, we decided to take a look back in history of Serbian cultural policy and make brief overview of some crucial circumstances that affected it the most. Understanding the past helps us solve present problems, so we will try to meet this complicated task because, as prominent Serbian historian Dubravka Stojanović stated (Stojanović, 2010): “In our search for answers on questions asked by the present we study the past because it helps us in easier rationalization of modern events so we can offer the public knowledge on their origin. Our task is to affect our own époque by providing our contemporaries most precious elements that can form solution for actual problems”.46
While analyzing cultural policy in Serbia in the past century we have to keep in mind certain aspects that aren’t necessarily from domain of cultural studies, but rather from domain of political history of the Balkans and other fields of science. Serbian historian Ljubodrag Dimić noticed (Dimić, 2005): „Thinking about Serbian modern political and cultural history means confront the topic about which historiography – and other social sciences as well – don’t have a lot of valid answers or reliable and completely rational images of an époque which slipped away. (…) Views on cultural and political history are mostly shaped based on pressure of modernity, without respecting circumstances from the past, balance of power, historical circumstances, sometimes without respecting the basic facts”47
Therefore, this part of research will concentrate on historical overview of political processes that were influencing cultural policy of Serbia in the last century and its foreign cultural policy as well. This connection between politics and culture isn’t peculiar or exclusively valid only in Serbia, but nevertheless, its turbulent political history gives us a base in thinking that a strong influence on line politics-culture is notorious, so we’ll try to make an effort to understand it. That is what following overview, with all of its imperfections, is trying to achieve.
Getting to know facts which marked most important events in Serbian modern history is helpful in understanding that political processes in Serbia were always overlapping with
46 Stojanović, D., Ulje na vodi, Peščanik, Beograd, 2010, p. 25 47 Dimić, Lj., Stojanović, D., Jovanović, M., Srbija 1804-2004, Biblioteka Serbica, Beograd, 2005, p. 16 39 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
cultural policy and even directing the course of it. This also applies to all countries that Serbia was part of in the last century. State-legal framework of states that Serbia was part of has been changed seven times during last two centuries: firstly as unitary state in Principality of Serbia which later became Kingdom of Serbia, and at the beginning of 20th century started to be part of federation under various names: firstly it was Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, then Kingdom of Yugoslavia, then Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, which was succeeded by Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, then Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which led to State union of Serbia and Montenegro, which bring us to today’s Republic of Serbia. Nevertheless, despite constant political changes, as prominent Serbian historian Dubravka Stojanović said (Stojanović, 2008): “Frameworks in which state operated and its institutions were changing, but both of them were always filled with the same essence of political thinking and ideology which represented barrier to progress”.48
Cultural policy and therefore foreign cultural policy is a reflection of political and ideological issues that Serbia was/is facing. It is important to emphasize the importance of politics and its effects on every aspect in life of Serbian society, which applies to the field of cultural diplomacy as well: “It is a truism that a nation's culture cannot be divorced from its social, economic and political circumstances”.49
Miroslav Jovanović stressed (Jovanović, 2005): „Numerous political, state and social transformations and novelties that are introduced to life of Serbian people in 19th and 20th century had their reflection on development of Serbian culture. Not just due to fact that Serbian culture always followed general trends of European culture of 19th and 20th century (…) but also due to the fact that development was in many parts depended on general discontinuities of political and social development”50
From the beginning of 20th century until 2008, Serbia was in some form of political union with other surrounding countries. Starting with Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians in 1918, Serbia was part of political, territorial, economic and cultural union with others. This was valid until the most recent union – federation with Montenegro, which fell apart with
48 Stojanović, D., Steeplechase. Poltička kultura kao prepreka modernizacije Srbije in: Snaga lične odgovornosti, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava, Beograd, 2008, p. 201 49 Serbia Cultural Policy Profile, Compendium – Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, accessed: 09-08-2013 50 Dimić, Lj., Stojanović, D., Jovanović, M., Srbija 1804-2004, Biblioteka Serbica, Beograd, 2005, p. 168 40 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Montenegrin declaration of independence and break-up of the union with Serbia in 2006. Nevertheless, Serbia wasn’t even then fully defined as unitary state. The process of rounding up Serbia in unitary state actually finished in 2008, when Kosovo, former Serbian province, unilaterally declared its independence after decades of political repression. Today, one could say that Serbia is finally territorially determined country, although the recognition of Kosovo in Serbian society is political issue par excellence and it is not expected to be resolved soon in terms of Serbia’s actual recognition of independent Republic of Kosovo.51
Constant political turbulent circumstances in the Balkans over the last century, war in former Yugoslavia during the nineties, genocide and other war crimes that occurred in that period led to forming new set of cultural stereotypes (mainly in Western countries) about the Balkans. This part of Balkan Peninsula is again considered as corrupted, primitive and brutal. These stereotypes, as Misha Glenny noted (Glenny, 2003), were made alive again, reminding that the Balkans already had that tradition and served as inspiration for Western artists:
“The Balkans has proved a durable backdrop for western writers of fiction, whose collective imagination pictures the region as a heaving den of duplicity, corruption and death by unnatural causes. In the 1890s, Count Dracula, the quintessential Balkan villain, exported the region's dark passions to Whitby. Bram Stoker's literary suspicions appeared to be confirmed just 20 years later with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand: the region was synonymous with bad news, so whether you were Buchan, GB Shaw, Hergé or Christie, if you wanted to contrast the heroic or urbane with the unruly or venal, the easy route was to create a fictional setting in the Balkans. After the 90s, it was only a matter of time before western fiction rediscovered the tradition.”52
One of the tasks of cultural diplomacy today is to fight these stereotypes and improve position of Serbia and other Western Balkan countries on cultural map of the continent. From Serbian perspective, reconciliation in the region and facing the wartime past, taking responsibility for atrocities of wars in former Yugoslavia is crucial prerequisite in these efforts.
51 Nevertheless, acting Serbian government took some very important steps in that direction – opened dialogue on highest level with Kosovo officials with mediation of the EU. Result of dialogue was Brussels agreement, which is set to be implemented in the near future, successful implementation of the agreement is expected to end the long period of hostile relations between two countries. 52 Glenny, M., Backgound: Balkans, The Guardian, 06-09-2003 41 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
4.1. Cultural policy as reflection of Serbian national identity in the 20th century
The context set above led us to presumption that changes of national identity and political turbulences in Serbia had their effect on Serbia’s cultural policy as well. Milena Dragićević- Šešić noted (Dragićević-Šešić, 2010): “During the 20th century, Serbian national identity passed through several important stages of reformulation in concordance with changes of state organization and ideologies.”53
As ideologies and types of government changed, in turbulent political environment, the changes in cultural policy followed. From the beginning of 20th century, until the World War I, Serbian national identity was formed in accordance with Central-European traditions and models including culture of resistance to occupational powers. The emphasis on language and folklore was dominant. In that time two main courses in Serbian culture and politics occurred: policies of Europeanization, modernization and cosmopolitism; and as opposed to them – policies that promoted traditional culture that is by the rule connected with nationalism or more precisely – nationalistic forces in Serbian society were always using traditional culture in order to promote nationalistic political ideologies.
These two trends are relevant even today in Serbian society; Serbia has always been on crossroads of these two directions, which always provoked large scale debates and controversies within society and are continually questioned. However, the interpretation of political events in period from the beginning of the century and World War I among domestic historians and researchers is completely different as Dubravka Stojanović (Stojanović, 2010) noted: “When analyzing Serbian constitutions from the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century which were written in relation to Belgium model, as well as programs of political parties from that time, some researchers conclude that continuity of democratic institutions was guaranteed. These analyses encouraged some researchers to name this period as golden age of Serbian democracy. (…) On the other hand, other researchers stress that these liberal constitutions, parliamentary institutions and democratic customs were mask over undemocratic and authoritarian systems of ruling, which served as a façade necessary for
53 Dragićević-Šešić, M., Between the rock and a hard place: cultural policies of and towards Serbia, in: Jozef Batora and Monika Mokre, eds. Culture in the EU's External Relations: Bridging the Divide? Ashgate publisher, London, 2010, p. 139 42 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Serbia to be accepted in most influential democratic countries of the West, in that time in France and England”.54
When it comes to cultural exchanges and cooperation in period before the World War I, Serbia was very active in developing cultural connections with other countries. The policy was concentrated on artists living in Austro-Hungarian Empire with strong influence of German cultural and educational policy models: “Serbia created links with artists and intellectuals of Serbian, south-Slavic and Slavic origin (Czechs) living in the Austro- Hungarian empire and took models of cultural and educational institutions from Germanic cultural spheres as the majority of educated elites had been raised within the German school system. The Serbian pavilions within World Exhibitions in Paris in 1899 and Rome in 1911 showed that the priority of the Serbian state was cooperation with artists of south Slavic origin. Politics of display and representation included contemporary art and folkloric artifacts, as well as artistic works representing Balkan cultures as an “oriental other” popular in Western imagery.”55
4.2. Between two World Wars
In period that followed ending of World War I and beginning of World War II, Serbia became part of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians (1918), which will, after ten years, become The Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929). Main point in this period regarding its cultural policy was overlap of Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian and Slovenian cultural identities which created the inception of future federate state. In terms of foreign cultural policy, the official, state based links made with France and Great Britain are worth mentioning, but there were some links created with ideologically unacceptable Soviet Union mainly from leftist independent artists and groups (publishing house Nolit, for example) in order to promote socialist values at home, which wasn’t supported by official policy.
On state level, frequent changes of governments and whole systems of government prevented the creation of a clear and continuous cultural diplomacy policy (or cultural policy in
54 Stojanović, D., Ulje na vodi, Peščanik, 2010, p. 26 55 Dragićević-Šešić, M., Between the rock and a hard place: cultural policies of and towards Serbia, in: Jozef Batora and Monika Mokre, eds. Culture in the EU's External Relations: Bridging the Divide? Ashgate publisher, London, 2010, p. 141 43 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
general), as different political parties promoting different ideologies and sets of values were setting different priorities in cooperation with other countries. Nevertheless, period between two World Wars remained as period in which Serbian culture was marked with spreading cultural influence and accepting impulses from new environment through new elite that was formed. Miroslav Jovanović noted (Jovanović, 2010): “New generations of intellectuals, cultural and social experts who studied abroad were introduced (…) generations that enabled strong influence of European cultural, artistic and social role models and procedures into Serbian culture.”56
After the Kingdom was occupied during World War II, The Anti-Fascist Council of the People's Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) announced in 1943 their intention to rebuild the country as Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DF Yugoslavia, DFY), leaving the republic-or- kingdom dilemma open. In 1945, the country became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPR Yugoslavia, FPRY), with the constitution coming into force in 1946, and in 1963 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFR Yugoslavia, SFRY).
4.3. Tito’s Yugoslavia
Second World War was new milestone in terms of development of cultural policy in Serbia. Discontinuity with previous development processes that was a result of the war was overwhelming: “Firstly, occupation and disintegration of country were influencing on deflection towards fascistic and Nazi cultural patterns, while Civil war brought more pastoral elements in cultural behavior. At the end of the war, the new, more deep, comprehensive and ideologically exclusive fracture was taking place – overtaking of rigid communistic ideological and cultural matrix influenced general overturn of cultural development in relation to previous emphasized civic cultural code.”57
In new political circumstances, Serbian national identity was needed to be built yet again: “After the World War II and the formation of Socialist Yugoslavia as a federation of
56 Dimić, Lj., Stojanović, D., Jovanović, M., Srbija 1804-2004, Biblioteka Serbica, Beograd, 2005, p. 172 57 Ibid, p. 173 44 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 autonomous republics, Serbian national identity should be developed independently58 but without returning to its pre-World War I roots, instead, it was reformulated according to socialist ideology.”59
As far as official cultural policy is concerned, the developments in this field followed the changes of political course and priorities on the highest level of government. In Serbia’s Cultural Policy Profile on Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, authors offered three phases of cultural models in period of Tito’s Yugoslavia:
Social Realism and a Repressive Cultural Model (1945 – 1953): The first phase can be characterized by social realism copied from Stalin's model of culture in the former USSR. The function of culture, in an ideological sense, was utilitarian and did not encourage the idea of culture as a field for individual freedom of any sort. Luckily, this phase was brief and was followed by a period of progressive cultural action. Democracy in Culture (1953 – 1974): Within the second phase, two parallel cultural developments can be identified; one was still under strong state and ideological control, while the other, which was more creative and vivid, slowly gained artistic freedom. By the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s, many new institutions and prestigious international festivals for different art forms had been established. A large network of municipal cultural institutions, such as houses of culture, libraries and cinemas was also created. At the same time, many individual artists were sanctioned and their works (films, theatre plays and productions, books, etc.) were banned. This was not an officially proclaimed policy but was exercised through political and ideological pressure. Decentralization and Self-Governance (1974 – 1989): This third phase is particularly known for the specific policy initiatives to decentralize culture throughout the former Yugoslavia. Serbia had some additional particularities concerning its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural character. Two autonomous provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo) were given full competence over cultural policy as a result of their multi-ethnic and cultural structure. The entire cultural system was transformed during this period. Self-governing communities of interest were introduced and "free labor exchanges" facilitated closer links among cultural institutions and local economies through, for example, theatre communities, private galleries, etc. In the mid- 1980s, a strong nationalistic movement emerged among official and unofficial political and cultural institutions, which was especially stimulated by the liberalization of the media.60
Although federal state consisted of six republics, with lot of cultural centers in their capitals, Yugoslavia’s cultural and political capital was actually Belgrade. On federal state level, Belgrade was presenting Yugoslav socialist politics and culture, which in other republics was
58 All federal units had developed its own Ministries for culture, and Federal ministry for culture stopped to exist after few years as not necessary. On the other side, foreign affaires, and consequently, cultural diplomacy, had stayed in the hands of Federal central government. 59 Dragićević-Šešić, M., Between the rock and a hard place: cultural policies of and towards Serbia, in: Jozef Batora and Monika Mokre, eds. Culture in the EU's External Relations: Bridging the Divide? Ashgate publisher, London, 2010, p. 143 60 Serbia Cultural Policy Profile, Compendium – Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/countries.php?pcid=1410 accessed: 09-08-2013 45 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
often seen as symbol of Serbian hegemony in Yugoslavia, and in the same time in Serbia it was seen as mean of denationalization of Serbian culture and alienation from itself. In following years, nationalistic forces in Serbia will interpret61 Yugoslavia as Serbia’s prison, the kidnapper of Serbian culture and national being and similar. On that wave, Dobrica Ćosić and others in Memorandum of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1986 pledged for new constitution to be written, because “Constitution from 1974 put Serbian people in unequal position in relation to other Yugoslav nations”.62 Despite all differences among Yugoslav republics and politically turbulent environment, cultural diplomacy of SFRY was highly developed. Even today, many of Serbian officials will say that model of cultural diplomacy of former, more often called; Tito’s Yugoslavia should be reintroduced again.63 Important notion on Yugoslav cultural diplomacy is that it was turned equally towards West and East and, very importantly – also towards countries of the so called third world.
The most often cited example of successful cultural diplomacy endeavor from that time was Yugoslav exhibition in the Grand Palais in Paris in 1953, curated by famous Yugoslav writer Miroslav Krleža. The selection of 12th century Serbian frescoes, Romanica sculptures (Croatia) and bogumil tombstones – represented Yugoslavia as country of hope, where many different religions and cultures could coexist in peace, forming one common heritage.
Having in mind the geopolitical context of that time, policy that presented Yugoslavia as meeting point for East and West, despite the Iron Curtain, and place for introducing to the world cultures not familiar to both sides such as cultures from so called third world, granted Yugoslavia very special place on cultural map of the world. In that sense, the sixties were period of most vivid cultural activity in Yugoslavia, as Radina Vučetić noted (Vučetić, 2012): “Influences in popular culture and everyday life during the Cold War were powerful instruments of foreign policy of the East and the West in fight for minds and souls, and Yugoslavia was, having in mind its position between powers, perfect battle field for that fight”64
As a result, Yugoslavia was presented and promoted as tolerant, multicultural society, a mix of various cultures. Politically, it was addition to the brotherhood and unity policy which
61 See more in: Srpska strana rata, Koreni trauma, ur. Nebojša Popov, Republika, Beograd, 1996 62 Biserko, S., Kovanje antijugoslovenske zavere, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, 2006, p. 25 63 More on that in next chapter of this master thesis 64 Vučetić, R., Koka-kola socijalizam, Službeni glasnik, Beograd, 2012 46 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Yugoslavia was also known for. Yugoslavia became known for being capable of taking in cultural and artistic products from both sides, although movie censorship by state commission was introduced following the end of World War II. Criteria for censorship depended on political and ideological preferences of ruling Communist party: “Criteria were formed by ideological landmark on one hand, and Yugoslav foreign policy on the other. Ideology was mostly censoring topics as monarchism, church, religion, democracy, civil rights, sex, violence and criminal in efforts to shape the new man”65
After 1950, the ideological preferences towards the West became friendlier, as opposed to the preferences to the Soviet Union which had major impact on cultural life in Yugoslavia as well. After Stalin’s death in 1953, relations between Yugoslavia and USSR started to repair, which had its effect on Yugoslavia’s position in the West. Crisis in Hungary in 1956 and Hruscov’s visit to Yugoslavia in 1955 also influenced political and cultural climate: “Frequent visits between Yugoslav and Soviet officials in the West were considered as new approaching of Yugoslavia to the East block (…) Negative effects of these developments were dual – the West started to change its policy towards Belgrade, and in the same time Hruscov wasn’t satisfied with results in talks with Tito”66
Nevertheless, Yugoslavia was building up its image on both sides during the late 50’s and especially during the 60’s. In that time it has become known for one other form of international cultural cooperation and representation which boosted up its international reputation – the international artistic festivals.
Music Biennale Zagreb was founded in 1961, it was an international festival of contemporary music in Zagreb, Croatia, organized by the Croatian Composers' Society. The Biennale, founded by Milko Kelemen and held every other spring since 1961, has become one of the most important festivals of contemporary music in Europe. Many important composers were performed at the MBZ for the first time, at least in this part of Europe. This cultural event had immediately gathered the eminent names on the international music scene, thus having received a strong response as well as an incentive in its own environment. The festival gained international prominence in the 1960s and the 1970s in large part due to an ambivalent
65 Miloradović, G., Sovjetski kulturni uticaji u Jugoslaviji 1945-1955, as cited in Vučetić, R. Koka-kola socijalizam, Belgrade, 2012 66 Bogetić, D., Saradnja Jugoslavije sa zapadnim silama u vreme normalizacije njenih odnosa sa socijalističkim lagerom 1956. godine, Istorija XX veka, 2005, p. 113 47 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 position of Yugoslavia in the political and ideological divisions of the Cold War, making it a unique gathering place for artists from both East and West. Its reputation is still high even today, MBZ recently celebrated 50th birthday.
BITEF, Belgrade International Theatre Festival, was founded in 1967 in Belgrade. From its inception, BITEF has continually followed and supported the latest theater trends. It has become one of the most significant culture festivals in Yugoslavia, an important meeting point for artists from all over the world. During the sixties, BITEF founders, Mira Trailović, Jovan Ćirilov and their associates, courageously followed tumultuous events in global theater teeming with avant-garde explorations.
In the eighties, BITEF has shown Belgrade the highest reaches of the art of theater, thus becoming one of the few festivals comprising both experimental forms and significant classic achievements. During first two decades of its existence, BITEF became an important and highly appreciated festival for artists from East and West to promote their culture, meet, and share experience. It was unique and important also because it opened the doors for almost completely unknown cultures such is Indian culture and other cultures belonging to the group of countries that politically were in Non-Aligned Movement. Its role in connecting the theatre world of the time was crucial and therefore its legacy is even more important.
Just couple years after BITEF, in 1969, Belgrade Music Festival (BEMUS) was founded. Although special attention has been devoted to the promotion of local artists and their creativity, BEMUS has established its reputation abroad mostly presenting the most attractive international programs hosting some of the most prominent ensembles and soloists of the time.
The International Film Festival (FEST), the last of the most important festivals of that time was founded in 1971. It was the only film festival in socialist countries that attracted big Hollywood stars such as Jack Nicholson, Kirk Douglas, Robert De Niro, Dennis Hopper, Peter Fonda and famous directors like Miloš Forman, Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Polanski, Sam Peckinpah, Pier Paolo Pasolini etc. FEST was also gathering place for artists and experts who could showcase their artistic work, but also debate and discuss the trends in contemporary art.
The reputation and popularity of these numerous international festivals (almost all held in Belgrade) secured easier and more recognizable presentation of Yugoslavia in the world - 48 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
from ethnic folklore and naïve art which represented and celebrated Yugoslav cultural diversities to contemporary abstract Yugoslav art as a symbol for its modernity and uniqueness in a socialist world. In terms of Dominique Moisi67, Yugoslavia was indeed the best representation of culture of hope – hope means confidence, and in Moisi’s view, this hope is translated into cultural openness and confidence. This notion could, however, be debated if perspective of internal cultural policy is offered – especially question on how Tito’s Yugoslavia dealt with its internal cultural policies, especially in terms of censorship and political pressure that many domestic avant-garde artists have been subjected to.68
4.4. The eighties
After Tito’s death in 1980, in a sense, everything described above started to fall apart. The immediate revival of Serbian nationalism followed Tito’s death and first of many of its targets in following decades were Kosovo Albanians. At that time, the Constitution of 1974 was still in effect, which many Serbian intellectuals earlier consider to be the executioner of Serbia69, because it didn’t allow Serbian authorities to dominate Yugoslavia, on the one hand, while on the other – broad decentralization prescribed by the Constitution gave Serbian northern province Vojvodina and southern province Kosovo jurisdictions similar to those that other Yugoslav republics had, which caused frustration among the political and intellectual elite in Serbia and became the common denominator for all promoters of Serbian nationalism.
Requests made by Serbian elite regarding change of Constitution from 1974 in the eighties were not new. Fourth Plenum of Central Committee (1966), student demonstrations (1968), first demonstrations of Albanians (1968), were key points that had crucial effect on events in the eighties: “Already in 1977, one of the initiators of constitutional changes, Dragoslav Marković published so called Blue book, which analyzes standing of Serbia and its provinces regarding Constitution. He said that “Serbian nationalism was for years feeding on unsolved
67 Moisi D., The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, humiliation, and Hope are Reshaping the World, Routledge, New York, 2010 68 For more on this see for example: Milenković, N., Kratak pregled nasilja nad duhom: Zvezda i njena senka, MSLU, Novi Sad, 2006 69 Olga Popović-Obradović in Kosovo - cilj ili sredstvo srpske nacionalne politike, 2005, noted: „Constitution from 1974, which Serbian elite considered as axeman of Serbia in favor of other republics, after changes in 1989 which granted Serbia four votes in federation, that same sonstitution suddenly became accomplice of Serbia in its fight to dominate over Yugoslavia“ Full article: http://pescanik.net/2005/02/kosovo-cilj-ili-sredstvo- nacionalne-politike/ accessed on 27-07-2013 49 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
questions raised in text of 1974 Constitution, on its unequal regulation and problems of Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo, as well as separatism of Albanians”70
In 1981, talks about a change to the Constitution started to become louder. At the same time, in Kosovo, in March 1981, students of the University of Pristine (capital of Kosovo) organized a peaceful demonstration in which the request for a 'Republic of Kosovo' was brought up for the first time. Protesters requested establishing equal status of Albanians in Yugoslavia by recognition of Albanian nationality, instead of the minority status. The Yugoslav government (in that time controlled in large part by Serbia) responded by sending the army to crush the demonstrators, killing dozens of pupils and students: „Demonstration of Kosovo Albanians in 1981 were used for opening the Serbian national question and started nationalistic euphoria in Serbia; Yugoslav People’s Army openly started to be tool of politics, basically occupying Kosovo in these efforts“71
In the following years, police state in Kosovo was set up, which was followed by mass arrests and repression of those who were in favor of independence of Kosovo. In parallel, members of the Serbian political, intellectual, cultural and religious elites revived the Kosovo myth which became the founding stone of every aspect of official policy, including cultural one. However, these processes were done slowly and patiently, so many didn’t pay enough attention on them: “Slowly, policies of exclusion were implemented – first as a policy of self- exclusion. Large number of cultural elite members did not even notice this development as they enjoyed new freedoms enabling them to international cooperation’s in publishing and research unimaginable ten years before (e. g., the launch of the review Subcultures, (IIC SSO, Belgrade 1984 - 1988) which succeeded to publish four issues bringing forward new and unknown topics for that time)72.
The influence of Serbian nationalist intellectual and cultural elite culminated in September 1986, when Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences (SANU) was published, which is considered to be the ideological foundation of Milošević's nationalistic policy, with aim to create ethnically pure, so called, Great Serbia. In that document, demands
70 Đekić, M., Upotreba Srbije, Optužbe i priznanja Draže Markovića, as cited in Biserko, S., Kovanje antijugoslovenske zavere I, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, 2006, p. 23 71 Biserko, S., Kovanje antijugoslovnske zavere I, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, Beograd, 2006, p. 27 72 Dragićević-Šešić, M., Between the rock and a hard place: cultural policies of and towards Serbia, in: Jozef Batora and Monika Mokre, eds. Culture in the EU's External Relations: Bridging the Divide? Ashgate publisher, London, 2010, p. 144 50 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
of the Albanians for equality are interpreted as ‘physical, political, legal and cultural genocide over Serbian population.’73 SANU was holding the government responsible for the difficult position of Serbs inside Yugoslavia and the marginalization of Serbian culture.
In the same time, the mainstream media which will soon fall under Milošević’s control became hostile towards foreign influences from the West, starting a media war: “Links with non-aligned countries were sarcastically interpreted, but links with other orthodox Christian nations (Armenians, Georgians) were idealized, although they were, in fact, non-existent (…) In this way, the media war in the 80s contributed considerably to a victimized image of Serbian people, emotionally reinforced by the celebrations of the anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo and the exhumation of civilian victims of World War II from mass graves to proper cemeteries.”74
Despite the very successful development of youth and alternative culture in Yugoslavia during the eighties (New Wave, (Belgrade/Zagreb); Neue Slowenische Kunst (Ljubljana), Novi primitivizam/New Primitives (Sarajevo) – Yugoslavia, driven by Serbian nationalism slowly became country that produces culture of fear. In Moisi’s words – while fear is indispensable for survival, it can become excessive and incapacitating; the high point of hope in Europe was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall; the feeling of hope has been deteriorating ever since. However, the key moment for Europeans to completely change their positions was the breakup of Yugoslavia which brought a war to the backyard of Europe.
4.5. The nineties
During the eighties, Serbia, generally speaking, didn’t take openly hostile position towards West and its system of values. The stand points of influential theological thinkers about West Europe which for them became great evil, poisoner of Europe, and made all men the slave of material things or that Europe was a white demon where no one has hope for survival75 – didn’t left the circles of Serbian Orthodox Church, until the beginning of the eighties when magazine Pravoslavlje became popular and used in nationalistic purposes: “Kosovo
73 Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1986, full text available at http://pescanik.net/wp-content/PDF/memorandum_sanu.pdf, accessed on 29-07-2013 74 Dragićević-Šešić, M., Media war and Hatred, Kultura n. 93-94, Belgrade, 1994 75 Đorđević, M., Signs of the Times, Janus Library, In press, Belgrade, 1998. 51 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Albanians were often called Turkish converts, conductors of genocide over Serbs which led to creating an extremely hostile atmosphere”76
On the wave of nationalistic hysteria introduced in mid-eighties, there was plenty of time for Milošević to inaugurate himself as new national leader. He centralized power and early in 1989 forcibly revoked Kosovo's autonomy. State of emergency had been declared in Kosovo, the army and police suppressed any resistance, arresting hundreds of people. During demonstrations of Albanians in late March 1989, police killed 24 people, according to Human Rights Watch. Three months later, at the celebration of 600 years since the defeat of the Serbian army in the Battle of Kosovo in 14th century (which is important part of collective memory and national pride), on the June 28th 1989, Milošević delivered a speech at Gazimestan, place where battle for Kosovo in 14th century took place, in which he announces that for achievement of the objectives of his policy, even armed conflict were not excluded. (Once again, we're facing battles. They are not armed, although such cannot be excluded.) Five months later, the Berlin Wall falls and Cold War ends. Two days after the deconstruction of the Berlin Wall started, on the elections for the president of the Presidency (main executive office), citizens of Serbia gave plebiscite support to Milošević and elect him as the new national leader.
In that time, role that cultural and intellectual elite in Serbia was supposed to play – role of warning the public about far-reaching consequences that nationalism could (and will in later years) produce was not fulfilled. Latinka Perović claims that it was consequence of constant immaturity of Serbian elite who, in large part, was influenced by nationalistic policies (Perović, 1996): “Since the beginning of political disputes in Yugoslavia, and especially since the moment when they became war conflicts, Serbia was building its relation towards Europe on only one need: to convince West Europe in its own truth (…) Refusing to think about how others see us is sure sign of closing up, of isolation and losing capability for comparing yourself with others, which is first condition for realistic insight of that what you really are. Serbian elite was expected to play key role in these efforts, instead, it only served as tool for spreading ‘the Serbian truth’ which is considered as its patriotic obligation”77
76 Sundhaussen, H., Istorija Srbije od 19. do 21. veka, Clio, Beograd, p. 423 77 Perović, L., Srpska strana rata, Trauma i katarza u istorijskom pamćenju, ur. Nebojša Popov, Republika, Beograd, 1996, p. 126 52 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
During the nineties, Milošević claimed Yugoslav heritage and continued to use the name of the country which will soon be destroyed by his war policies. Just like the Yugoslav people’s army which was used in order to fulfill his political goals78, he also continued to use Yugoslav anthems, festivities, cultural and other institutions. In the same time, animosity towards Tito and his legacy continued, and he was, in words of Holm Sundhaussen stigmatized as Croat and named as the greatest enemy of Serbs (Sundhaussen, 2007): “Serbian nationalists accused Tito for all the troubles and suffering that Serbs were subjected to after World War II and after that (…) but most importantly for dividing Serbia into three parts – one republic and two provinces.”79
In short, this is the context of beginning of wars in former Yugoslavia that will tear apart country previously known for its cosmopolitism and reputation of openness and cultural diversity in the world. War in Croatia started in 1991 and interrupted mutual cultural communication and links between Serbia and the outside world; economic, cultural and educational embargo was proclaimed. Serbia, under the name of Yugoslavia, was suspended from the UN, UNESCO and other important international organizations and initiatives: “Serbia was excluded from all cultural forums where before it had been one of the rare representatives of the non-democratic and Slavic world. Yugoslavia/Serbia was isolated, and its place in international relations was taken over by Eastern European countries going quickly through transition processes toward integration within the EU.”80
In these circumstances, almost nothing has left in terms of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation with the rest of the world. The images of wars, devastation, genocide and ethnic cleansing became main associations for Serbia in other countries. Serbia has become promoter of “culture” of war and devastation. As a result of isolation, official representation in international cultural field was in fact non-existing. Only independent artists met abroad in an international context along with NGOs and participated in
78 More on breaking up Yugoslavia and conspiracy of Serbian leadership behind it: Transcripts of Meetings of The Supreme Defence Council of Yugoslavia, available at http://www.sense- agency.com/naslovna/tribunal_(mksj).58.html accessd on 17-08-2013; Jović, Borisav, Poslednji dani SFRJ: Izvodi iz dnevnika, Politika, Beograd, 1995, Popov, Nebojša (ed.), Srpska strana rata, Republika, Beograd, 1996; Popović, Srđa, One gorke suze posle, Peščanik, Beograd, 2010; Biserko, Sonja (ed.), Kovanje antijugoslovenske zavere, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, Beograd, 2006; Biserko, Sonja, Yugoslavia’s Implosion, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, Beograd, 2012, etc. 79 Sundhaussen, H., Istorija Srbije od 19. do 21. veka, Clio, Beograd, 2007, p. 419 80 Dragićević-Šešić, M., Between the rock and a hard place: cultural policies of and towards Serbia, in: Jozef Batora and Monika Mokre, eds. Culture in the EU's External Relations: Bridging the Divide? Ashgate publisher, London, 2010, p. 147 53 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
international cooperation most often positioning themselves against Milošević nationalistic policies. From the mid-nineties, the international community began to look for ways to support the civil sector in Serbia and to reintroduce cooperation processes between nations of former Yugoslavia. Numerous networks and partnerships were created, such as the Balkan Association of Publishers or the Balkan Art Network. Group of authors on Compendium, Cultural policies and trends in Europe describe the nineties in Serbia regarding cultural policy as follows:
Culture of Nationalism (1990 – 2000): Serbia was lacking a general concept or strategy for culture as well as a clear definition of cultural policy. This ambiguity, therefore, marginalized culture as a creative impulse and process in the modernization of society and emphasized its role as a keeper and promoter of national identity. Self-government was abolished as a system, and cultural institutions were returned to state / municipal authority, nominating directors and controlling their activities. The role and contribution of leading cultural NGOs had been vitally important in Serbia. They first became a distinct feature of opposition to the official culture of nationalism and state control in Serbia during the Milosevic years. In fact, it has been claimed that as much as 50% of the resistance to the Milosevic regime, during the 1990s, was manifested through culture and the active struggle on the part of NGOs, independent publishers and artists for a different way of life. This struggle was spread throughout the country. Their actions received significant material assistance from the international community and notably from the Soros Foundation via its Open Society Fund, Serbia.81
The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was the closing chapter of the horror of the nineties in Serbia and region. During 1998, the international community, now with many years of experience in the peace negotiations with the Milošević regime, tried in various ways to stop the rampage against civilians and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which is in the Serbian state owned media presented as ‘war of Serbian forces against terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)’. Protests in the streets of Pristine in early March 1998 were the introduction to the outbreak of the war in Kosovo. The killing of Albanian and Serbian civilians throughout Kosovo continues in open conflict between Serbian forces and the KLA during the year. After many months of unsuccessful negotiations with Milošević, and after the discovery of bodies of civilians in village Račak in Kosovo, on 24th March 1999, NATO intervention
81 Serbia Cultural Policy Profile, Compendium – Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/countries.php?pcid=1410 accessed: 09-08-2013 54 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
called the Operation Allied Force began, which was in Serbia’s controlled media called Operation Angel of Mercy, the name that still resonates in Serbian media even today. The bombing lasted for 78 days. During 11 weeks of a state of war in Serbia, Milosevic regime by organizing public meetings, so called meetings of freedom and by abusing media, led a campaign about historic successes of the Yugoslav army over the NATO forces, celebrated victory of innocent Serbian people, leading a media war against the whole world. During NATO’s intervention, Serbia’s infrastructure was severely destroyed along with its reputation and image in the world. The victims were never listed, but some estimations82 say that more than 9,000 people were killed. International Committee of Red Cross stated in July 2013 stated83 that 11,859 persons are still missing. These victims are added to hundreds of thousands of casualties84 in the wars in former Yugoslavia. The bombing ended on June 9th 1999 by the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement which was followed by Resolution 1244 that UN Security Council adopted the following day. During the year 2000, support for Milošević regime among citizens of Serbia finally decreased, which was a prelude to his defeat in the presidential elections on 24th September 2000. Because Milošević refused to recognize the election results, the wave of demonstrations started in whole Serbia that culminated in Belgrade, on October 5th 2000 opening the doors for first democratic government to be elected in Serbia and change of country’s political and cultural course.■
82 Estimated by Fund For Humanitarian Law in Belgrade, http://www.hlc-rdc.org/?p=19413 accessed on 10-08- 2013 83 International Committee of the Red Cross, http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/protected-persons/missing- persons/index.jsp accessed on 10-08-2013 84 According to estimation of International Commission on Missing Persons: http://www.ic-mp.org/icmp- worldwide/southeast-europe/ accessed on 10-08-2013 55 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
V Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Ministry of Culture in Serbia regarding Cultural Diplomacy, 2001-2013
Following part of this master thesis will focus on practices, strategies and actions of five different Ministries of Culture in Serbia from the period 2001-2013. This period includes five different formations of Government of Serbia and five different formations of Ministry of Culture as well. First democratic government after year 2000, so called Đinđić’s Government, lasted from 2001 until assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić in 2003. Minister of Culture in that period was Mr. Branislav Lečić. Second period was marked by government of Vojislav Koštunica in period 2004-2007, so called First Koštunica’s Government. In that period Minister of Culture was Mr. Dragan Kojadinović. Period 2007-2008 was marked by Second Koštunica’s government which introduced new formation of Ministry of Culture, including the Minister, Mr. Vojislav Brajović. Period 2008-2011 was marked with First Cvetković’s government, with Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković and Minister of Culture Mr. Nebojša Bradić. Finally, period 2011-2012, the Second Cvetković’s government which was formed after reconstruction, included changes in Ministry of Culture as well, the new Minister, Mr. Predrag Marković was appointed. We decided to track only activities of Ministry of Culture for purposes of this master thesis. That is done because the greatest amount of responsibility for carrying out cultural policy is on Ministry of Culture. “In most countries, formulating and conducting national cultural policy is under jurisdiction of Ministry of Culture or some other para-government body (council for culture, artistic council…). Of course, cultural policy is conducted in part through other public policies: educational, media, health.
Nevertheless, task of Ministry of Culture is coordination on national level all of the activities of public government in domain of culture – of all these activities are coordinated through intersectional strategies or other forms of cooperation”85 It would be, however, important to confront and compare activities of Ministry of Foreign Affairs in terms of cultural diplomacy as well. However, this research will concentrate on practice of Ministry of Culture in the last decade only.
85 Dragićević-Šešić, M., Stojković, B. Kultura, menadžment, animacija, marketing, Clio, Beograd, 2011, pp. 35- 36 56 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.1. Introduction and Important Annotations
Main sources for research of this part of thesis could be divided in five main parts: 1) annual reports of Ministry of Culture and other available official documents regarding international cultural cooperation; 2) interviews with five former Ministers of Culture and/or their associates responsible for international cultural cooperation conducted especially for the means of this master thesis; 3) academic work of other scholars who contributed to the research of the topic in recent years86; 4) press clipping87 of international activities of Government and Ministry of Culture gathered through official website of the Government of Serbia. Author of the thesis considered official documents (by the law available to everyone through Ministry’s office for relation with public and citizens) crucial in this part of research. However, the obstacles encountered during this process were unexpected and damaging to results of the research. We believe that it is important to present obstacles in cooperation and communication with Ministry of Culture, which should have provided all relevant documents.
In communication with Ministry of Culture regarding requests for access to annual reports, strategies, proceedings from meetings regarding cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation, drafts of laws, other pieces of regulation and other written tracks of activity of Ministry in terms of cultural diplomacy, author of the thesis encountered severe problems and has been overwhelmed by excessive procedures that needed to be followed in cooperation and communication with Ministry of Culture of Serbia. Upon submitting request via online system on website of Ministry of Culture, for several weeks, nobody answered on request for documents, although Ministry is legally obliged to reply to such requests made by citizens in timely manner, as stated on its website. After two weeks of waiting, author personally called the Ministry asking for answer to request. The instruction given to author by the phone was that official request for information through office of Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Protection88 should have been filed. Ministry’s employee informed us that their services receive great amount of similar requests via e-mail, which may be the reason for not replying to online request for documents at the first place. This showed old-
86 Works of Ljiljana Rogač, Milena Dragićević-Šešić, Vesna Đukić, etc. 87 Press clipping dates from year 2004, because webiste of the Government doesn’t keep archive before that period. Complete press clipping (full list of links of all government news and reports on international cultural cooperation) could be found in Annex III of this thesis on page 132. 88 Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Protection http://www.poverenik.rs/index.php accessed on 02-09-2013 57 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
fashioned manner in relations to the public from the side of the Ministry and obsolete methods of communication with the interested parties outside of the Ministry. We filed report through Commissioner’s office, and two weeks later received written reply from the Ministry, a needless notification that they received the request. In notificiation letter, we were informed that Ministry is legally obliged to answer to request for documents in 40 working days. The content of the letter didn’t include anything about request itself or availability of requested documents. The following week, author received a call from the Ministry. Ministry’s employee, responsible for answering to requests filed by citizens, informed us that Ministry didn’t have any of the documents we were looking for. When asked how that could be possible – in semi-private tone, Ministry’s official explained that documents requested couldn’t be found and if these documents even exist, they haven’t been archived. In the end, we were informed that documents are probably lost, all of them, except several annual reports that Ministry will provide copies for our research. When asked did Government Archive or Central state archives were consulted, Ministry’s employee answered positively, however, those archives haven’t archived documents we were looking for.
In official answer to our request89 the Ministry stated: “Ministry of culture and information in requested period (2001-2013) haven’t adopted any particular strategy or regulation regarding international cultural cooperation or cultural diplomacy.”90.
These informations shed light on, at very least, three aspects of the work of the Ministry: 1) complete lack of institutional memory that is caused by irresponsibility regarding non- archiving the most important documents of the work of institution; 2) excessive communication methods with the public and other institutions; 3) not clearly defined structure in determing responsible parts inside the institution who don’t succeed in executing taskts prescribed by the law.
Having in mind that Ministry has a legal obligation to file annual reports on its work to the Parliament of Serbia, we turned our attention to this institution, hoping that Parliament’s archives saved reports of the Ministry. In our contact with employee in Parliament of Serbia who is responsible for archives, we were informed that Parliament’s archive doesn’t contain even one annual report from the Ministry of Culture from recent years. Parilament’s employee explained: Parliament has just recently started to play supervisory role in relation
89 Scanned official answer to my request for documents could be found in Annex I on page 129 90 Ibid. 58 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 to the Ministries. That is probably because of starting negotiations with the EU. In recent years, we didn’t receive many reports from other public institutions.
This information showed that: 1) Parliament as well as the Ministry doesn’t meet obligations prescribed by the law and Constitution which are very strict – Parliament is highest office in Serbia’s state system with complex set of obligations and responsibilities, one of which is controlling and tracking work of other branches of the Government; 2) Parilament’s services don’t respect the law and prescribed procedures which doesn’t seem to cause any kind of sanction, as weel as there is no internal or external control of the work of institution.
Because of above stated reasons, we succedeed to gather only several annual reports on the work of the Ministry with information crucial for our research. As a result of lack of official documents, we decided to use interviews with former Ministers of Culture as primary sources for this research, and available reports and press clipping as secondary. It should have been other way around – strategies and reports of the Ministry should have been primary sources, and interviews should have been secondary, additional sources. However, from interviews with former Ministers and press clipping of the activities of the Ministry we can, even partially, draw picture regarding cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation of the Ministry in period that is under research. We can, at least, detect main directions of action, the logic and intentions in this field from perspective of the most responsible persons in the Ministry itself – former Ministers of Culture. In addition to interviews and press clipping, we will use work of other scholars who succeeded in finding reliable sources for research of the cultural diplomacy in Serbia in the past ten and more years. We will quote their findings, especially those regarding period after democratic changes in Serbia in the year 2000. Important source was Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, with important information that directly relate to this research. Also, we will include information gained through interviews with two independent experts from the field who agreed to participate in this research – Mr. Dimitrije Vujadinović and Ms. Irina Subotić who gave their reflections and opinions about how cultural diplomacy in Serbia is done on the state level. Interviews with them helped us to gain information from perspective of people not involved in the cultural diplomacy on the state level, but rather from margin of official policy.
59 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.2. Period 2001-2004.
One of the most important tasks identified by the first democratic government after regime of Slobodan Milošević was to re-establish the broken links with all international institutions and organizations. Specific cultural priorities had not been defined, but European integration is considered as an ultimate political goal of the Government. The principal document relevant for this issue is the National Strategy of the Republic of Serbia SCG`s Accession91: “For Serbia (Serbia-Montenegro), as for any other European state, the European Union represents an attractive environment with possibility for development and peaceful future existence (…) Serbia has neither reason nor strategic aim which would keep it away or aside from the current European integration processes. Its full acceptance and prompt entry into this process represent its long-term and strategic state and social orientation.”
During the last decade of the 20th century Serbia has broken all links and burned all bridges that former Yugoslavia had built. In that sense, re-opening Serbia to the world was a great and difficult task. Zagorka Golubović noted (Golubović, 2006): “Serbia has been closed and isolated which caused annulment of all elements of openness (of Yugoslavia) and intercultural communication with the world and neighbors; Serbia turned to narrow defense of ‘national interests’ and goals that have been actually counterproductive”92 In these circumstances, with devastated economy, high unemployment rate, poverty and burden of the wartime past, new cultural policy hasn’t been priority to first democratic government which focused on talks about new Constitution, set of new laws, reintroducing Serbia back to the world93, reviving economy, and similar. Even in his exposé94, Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić didn’t even mention word ‘culture’.
However, first Ministry of Culture after Milošević had important task – to reestablish broken links and start process of Serbia’s comeback to international cultural community. This task wasn’t easy, mainly due to destroyed infrastructure and negative image that Serbia had in the world on one hand, and on the other – former models of cultural policy that were used during
91 Full text of document available at http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/nacionalna_dokumenta/national_strategy-pdf.pdf acessed on 20-08- 2013 92 Golubović Z., Pouke i dileme minulog veka, Filip Višnjić, Beograd, 2006, p. 237. 93 Program of Democratic Oposition of Serbia, full text available at http://www.zorandjindjic.org/dokumenta/program-dos?format=simple, accessed on 20-08-2013 94 Full text available at http://www.zorandjindjic.org/govori/ekspoze-dr-zorana-%C4%91in%C4%91i%C4%87- u-skup%C5%A1tini-srbije?format=simple, accessed on 19-08-2013 60 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
the nineties which caused discontinuity. Vesna Đukić called the end of 20th century in Serbia as blocked transition95, a period of discontinuity in the field of culture. She stressed (Đukić- Dojčinović, 2003): “There was a narrowing of field of cultural action and marginalization of culture in Serbia, but also in activities of Serbia in Europe and the rest of the world”.96 In these circumstances, having in mind other obstacles and challenges, especially those that included fight against mafia clans in country, organized crime and unreformed security agencies, Đinđić’s Government had very little time and resources to start dealing with cultural diplomacy.
However, Serbia started its way back into international cultural community literally immediately after the fall of Slobodan Milošević on 5th October 2000. In December 2000, Serbia became member of UNESCO (United Nations Scientific Educational and Cultural Organization) which was followed by Serbia’s accession to the United Nations and other most important international organizations. Re-joining the international community through membership in international networks and organizations became trend in first years after Milošević. Until the end of 2003, Serbia has again become member of most important international organizations from UN in 2000 to Council of Europe in 2003. Serbia’s path to membership in European Union is topic for itself and we will not pay detailed attention to the process of EU integrations of Serbia in this paper, but EU integration process through years showed influence on Serbia’s position on cultural map of Europe as well.
When it comes to presentation of Serbian culture abroad in first years after Milošević, we can’t be certain how many programs were produced in period 2001-2004, because of lack of official reports and documents, so we decided to consult work of Ljiljana Rogač, who made an analysis on this topic in period 2000-2010. Ljiljana Rogač offered analysis97 on representation of cultural programs from Serbia abroad in period 2000-2010. In this analysis we found that dynamics of cultural activities of Serbia in Europe and world started speeding up since year 2000. The lowest representation of cultural programs (exhibitions, performing programs, film programs, literary programs, manifestations, conferences) was in the year 2000 with only 1% of representation. In the year 2003, the year in which assassination of Zoran Đinđić took place and pushed Serbia backwards in every imaginable sense,
95 Đukić, V., Država i kultura, Institut za pozorište, film, radio i televiziju FDU, 2010, p. 228 96 Đukić V., Tranzicione kulturne politike – konfuzije i dileme, Zadužbina Andrejević, Beograd, 2003 97 Rogač, Lj., Kulturne aktivnosti Srbije u Evropi i svetu: 2000-2010, Časopis Kultura 130, Beograd, 2011, pp.331-349 61 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
representation of cultural programs of Serbia in the world increased to 7%. The breakdown of most common types of programs that Serbia offered in the first ten years of transition to the international public is as follows: exhibitions – 27%, concerts 14%, theatre performances 13%, film programs 13%, literary programs 12%.98
Report on the work of Ministry of Culture in the year 2003
The only available official document from this period is Report on the work of Ministry of Culture for the year 2003. One of the nine goals regarding cultural policy of the Ministry was international cultural cooperation. Among nine goals99, this one took number six on the list: “Improving scale and quality of international cultural cooperation – culture and arts are big export potential of Republic of Serbia”100.
In chapter on Effects of work of the Ministry, in subchapter named International cooperation, Ministry inform us that “international cultural cooperation has been significantly intensified” naming big number of exhibitions abroad, and mentioning the most important ones: “International exhibition of modern art and Pavilion at Biennale in Venice; National Serbian Culture in Gifhorn, Germany; Mina Vukomanović-Karadžić in Vienna”101 Report also state that Ministry has donated around 30 millions of dinars to “our experts in field of cultural heritage for participation in international conferences and scientific meeting abroad”. Through annual open call for financial support to “programs that improve development of Serbian culture and art”, the report state that “87 projects from domain of international cultural cooperation were supported by the Ministry”102.
During 2003, several Treaties on cultural cooperation with other countries have been signed – Treaty on cultural cooperation of Serbia with Spain, Poland and Peru. When it comes to
98 Ibid. 99 1) Creating the balance between protection of cultural heratige and encouraging contemporary art; 2) reform and modernization of cultural institutions; 3) revitalization of cultural industries; 4) De-etatization and decentralization of cultural policy; 5) improvement of culutral heritage and creativity of ethnic communities; 6) International cultural cooperation; 7) New philosophy regarding laws in culture; 8) Education and training; 9) Democratic culture and cultural democracy. 100 Izveštaj o radu Ministarstva kulture i medija za 2003. godinu, izveštaj broj 021-02-1/2004-12 101 Ibid. 102 Number of projects supported by the Ministry from other domains are: 1) Cinematography, 26 projects; 2) Theatre, 22 projects; 3) Music, 22 projects; 4) Visual art, 58 projects; 5) Multimedia projects, 11 projects; 6) Literary manifestations, 23 projects; 7) Cultural activities in Kosovo, 22 projects. 62 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
cultural manifestations abroad, Ministry of Culture emphasize following events: 1) Days of Serbian culture in Russian Federation; 2) Tour of opera house Madlenianium in Sankt Petersburg; 3) Performance of National Ballet Assemble of the Serbian National Theatre in Ohrid, Macedonia; 4) Days of Serbian contemporary movie in Vienna, Austria; 5) Performances of local theatres abroad – Youth Theatre from Novi Sad in Slovenia, National Theatre from Užice in Bulgaria, National Theatre Toša Jovanović from Zrenjanin in Albania, Theatre Boško Buha from Belgrade in Macedonia and Slovenia; 6) Collective exhibition of Serbian artists who live in Paris in Serbian Cultural Center in Paris.
From report it is clear that Ministry doesn’t consider these events as means of cultural diplomacy but rather as regular, ongoing activities of cultural institutions, with international aspect. As matter of the fact, expression cultural diplomacy has not been used even once in the report. In 2003, Serbia became part of several projects and programs initiated by the Council of Europe: MOSAIC project, dedicated to group of countries of South-East Europe, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe and Cultural policy and cultural diversity.
Political situation at home was very explosive during the period 2001-2003. Political disputes inside coalition that overthrown Milošević and later formed a government with Đinđić as Prime Minister, resulted in actual break-up among political parties, so Democratic Opposition of Serbia, broad coalition that won elections and defeated Milošević, actually was divided in two parts. One of them with Zoran Đinđić as a leader, who was personification of new politics of Serbia, which included integration with EU, return to international community and policies of modernization, and the other one, with Vojislav Koštunica as a leader, who represented nationalistic agenda.
Turbulent political circumstances that were affecting every aspect of life in Serbia during this period will be left out of this research mainly because they represent very important topic for which we would need much more space and time. All these events culminated in assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić.103 At the end of this period, these two and the half short years of first democratic government were marked by the assassination of Zoran
103 For more on atmosphere leading to assasination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić, political implications and political background of the assassination consult: Popović, Srđa, One gorke suze posle, Peščanik, Beograd, 2010; Peščanik’s archive of texts and analysis at http://pescanik.net/2011/10/atentat/, accessed on 28-08-2013 63 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Đinđić on 12th of March 2003, immediate introduction of state of emergency, and later on – return of nationalistic forces in power after the assassination.
***
Nevertheless, this period has also been marked with efforts to reintroduce Serbia to the world in political, economic and cultural sense. About that and other details regarding leading the Ministry of Culture in this turbulent period the testimony for this research has been given by Mr. Branislav Lečić, Minister of Culture in Đinđić’s government.
64 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.2.1. The Guerrilla Approach – Interview104 with former Minister of Culture Mr. Branislav Lečić105
What were the main circumstances that affected your work as Minister the most? How that reflected to your strategy regarding cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation?
During my mandate, the idea of changing the system was dominant, although a small number of politicians knew what that meant and how that process is actually connected with the culture. New image of Serbia, the new forms of behavior that would be different from the image of the Milošević era are topics that were generally shared by Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić and me. The first thing we tried to do was the inauguration of the new system of government and reform of institutions that were under the influence of Milošević party for more than a decade. The main ideas came from Zoran Đinđić. He wanted to construct Serbia as a truly democratic state to the greatest extent in accordance with its potential. It turned out that this potential was more attached to him personally and a few people around him and less to a wider social consciousness. It turned out also that a large number of people from that time actually just wanted political power, not the transformation of the Serbian state. The story of the changing image of Serbia was mask for their personal enrichment and improvement of both private and affairs of their political parties. This can be best seen today – there is not a single one politician in Serbia, which hadn’t, while in public office, misused political power for personal purposes, always under the slogan – to change Serbia.
Tell us something about your priorities as Minister of Culture and where on that list cultural diplomacy was.
The Ministry of Culture at the time was located in the building of the Archives of Serbia, with only three small offices, without any cultural policy, with old personnel and without any electronic devices, completely computer-free. In this situation, I realized that I could not project or suggest any cultural policy, cultural diplomacy alone, while the basics stay unsolved. So, I start from the beginning – found a space for Ministry, in the building of the
104 Interview conducted on July 2, 2013 in Belgrade 105 More about Mr. Lečić at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branislav_Le%C4%8Di%C4%87 accesed on 02-07- 2013 65 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Museum of Yugoslavia, then issued the first open call for new employees, divided the Ministry in departments and achieved the prerequisites for normal, everyday work. The Ministry has been given a new identity, modern space for work, equipment – in short, we started the modernization of the Ministry of Culture.
I kept on saying to the Government that culture is not an upgrade, but the base. It goes through all the nuances of institutions in a democratic system, through our private and social behavior.
In these circumstances, cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation were not a priority, because there was not a list of priorities. Everything happened at the same time and in parallel – finding building for the Ministry, introducing the new system, introducing new staff and development of ideas about the promotion in the world and international cultural cooperation.
We spent large amount of time thinking about new laws and how to restore communication with other countries, especially in the region. I always thought that cultural policy should be the first link to the outside world. In that sense, cultural diplomacy was important, but there wasn’t any kind of clear strategy due to complex circumstances in which Ministry operated.
Describe if there was cooperation with other parts of the Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in terms of mutual efforts to reintroduce Serbia to the world.
Cooperation among ministries was reduced – we were all busy with our own work and the problems in our departments, but we've always been in touch. For example, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Goran Svilanović and I had a close cooperation. However, this cooperation was in its infancy phase at the time, Serbia have just started to open itself up to the world again. But we both agreed that our appearance on the world stage should be thought-through from both sides – from Ministry for Foreign Affairs and from Ministry of Culture as well.
How would you describe state of cultural diplomacy in the time you were Minister?
Cultural diplomacy didn’t receive full recognition because there wasn’t participation of top artists who contribute the most to the cultural diplomacy, generally speaking. Here, that kind of consciousness in which the culture received full recognition, has never been achieved. At
66 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
the time when I was Minister, one of the problems in DOS (Democratic Opposition of Serbia) was that representatives of some political parties did not agree with my staffing solutions demanded to put their people in key positions in cultural sector. I refused to put people in position just because they were coming from particular political party; my choice was always those who are competent and trained. Another obstacle was the assassination of Zoran Đinđić, when we all lost basic will needed for shaping cultural policy, everything turned in political wars between parties and the struggle for the interests of individuals.
To what extent cultural policy and cultural diplomacy were depending on your personal initiatives and preferences?
Direction of cultural policy was depending on my personal affinity, knowledge and experience, indeed; however, my main interlocutor in every action and decision was Prime Minister Đinđić. One could say that the two of us actually formulated the outlines of a new cultural policy; that applies to cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation as well.
The biggest success of Ministry of Culture during my mandate is certainly making the foundations of new cultural identity of modern Serbia. Although we started from scratch, we succeeded to have huge number of cultural events abroad, signed a number of agreements with other countries, started off processes to enter cultural networks and institutions in Europe.
Also, through our program Serbia, our capital, we were dealing with access to culture for our citizens from inner Serbia. As you can see, we started to work actively outward and inward. These great efforts were interrupted by assassination of Prime Minister Đinđić.
How would you describe work of your successors in the Ministry in terms of cultural diplomacy and legacy you left behind?
My contact with all subsequent ministers of culture existed. However, our policies and attitudes are drastically different. We can say that there was no continuity with the policies of the Ministry I led. In Serbia, we all think that we should do everything by ourselves, and vanity does not allow us to have precedents in this sense, we want to be the first one, the savior, which is an obstacle to progress which needs continuity. Only the external factor, such as the EU, can force us to have continuity in any policy. We will never create it alone.
67 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Each subsequent Minister inherited the base we provided, some of them tried to continue in this direction, and some were involved in the destruction of the work we started. The best example of this is the closure of the information center that I opened in the Ministry – the center was connected to all the major universities in Europe (Paris, London, Munich, etc.). It was supposed to be used for the exchange and storage of artistic and academic work. Person who succeeded me on position of Minister of Culture, closed this center and put a portrait of Draža Mihajlović on the wall. I believe I said enough about relation to our work by successors.
What model for cultural diplomacy of Serbia you were trying to implement?
We wanted to implement a universal model of cultural diplomacy, which is characteristic for small country – showing your culture and art whenever and wherever you can. But, first we had to bring together people and groups who would articulate energy and potential and represent Serbia in the cultural world in the best way. Changing system of values in this case was crucial. We were in situation that entire system of values of the nineties was shaken up, but new one hasn’t been created yet. Nor the old values in which name great evil during the nineties was done became respectable again; neither the new, modern values could arise because Đinđić was killed. I believed that this rift between the two could be bridged through culture. In thinking about cultural diplomacy I relied on a modern, educated people, I tried to create a network of experts and get them connected with other networks in the world, so they could influence dominant thought in the country which was very conservative. I believed that we need to create new language in a sense, as opposed to the conservatism, and a completely new way of thinking.
How much money from the state budget was allocated to the Ministry, and from that amount how much was allocated for cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation?
We had to be very tactful, because we received very small portion of money from the state budget. I advocated that amount from the state budget for Ministry of Culture has to be under European standard – the minimum of 1.2% of the state budget, in which I succeeded. But, that simply wasn’t enough; we must not forget that at that time we did not have a clear tax policy, which also represented a problem for financing the activities. I could not say precisely
68 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 how much money did we allocate to international cultural cooperation and similar activities, but I believe not much, having in mind other major problems and repairs that had to be done.
How important is it to formulate a clear strategy for the development of cultural policy and cultural diplomacy, especially in the context of European integrations?
I think the culture in this sense is our most powerful tool. Cultural diplomacy has to be supported firstly by increasing the budget for culture, then introducing continuity of reforms in culture, fostering development and production of culture in the country and then finally comes the development of cultural diplomacy that helps the presentation of Serbia abroad in communication with key political players in the world.
What is your opinion – which model of cultural diplomacy is most appropriate for Serbia?
The most appropriate model of cultural diplomacy for Serbia in these circumstances would include several things but most important is creation of a clear system of responsibilities that would primarily be driven by the Ministry of Culture and the Government. Since I have not seen any politician or official who thinks this way, that is why I believe that the guerrilla approach is our solution. Guerrilla approach would mean actions of strong, powerful individuals and institutions who act alone, even against public policy. They should make a strategy for the development and presentation of our culture abroad, and thus represent the state in better way than it deserves. Excellent example is the Belgrade Philharmonic Orchestra (in which formation and renewal I’ve participated) where the individual in the lead of the institution and the institution itself are representing the country abroad despite any official policy. I’m not happy to say this, but, unfortunately, this is our situation – if there is no vision for culture in the Government or the Ministry, then the individuals from the cultural field must create it by themselves and present it to the world in the best way they can. ●
69 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.2.2. Conclusion
This period has been marked with efforts of the whole Government to reintroduce Serbia into international community after many years of sanctions, wars and devastation in the region. That included reintroducing Serbian culture into international cultural community as well. In that sense, problems which first Ministry of Culture after Milošević’s era encountered were numerous, we will list most significant ones. Firstly, the Ministry had to start its work from scratch, securing appropriate space and equipment for everyday work. Secondly, the staff of the Ministry had to be changed with involvement of new people. Thirdly, although internationally recognized and supported by Western countries, Government of Serbia had to renew its image and reputation among former partners. All these circumstances left little space for creation of specific cultural diplomacy strategy; Serbian officials in the Ministry had other priorities trying to provide conditions where normal work would be possible.
From interview with Minister Lečić we found out that political disputes inside the Government were also important factor in creating new cultural policy in general. In that sense, Đinđić’s Government didn’t pay much attention to cultural diplomacy strategy. We can say that this Government was focused on solving bigger, more fundamental problems and considered cultural diplomacy as additional policy which haven’t receive proper attention. On the other hand, problems that had to be solved inside the Ministry of Culture were also severe, as Mr. Lečić said: We’ve had bigger issues on our plate.
However, that doesn’t mean that some international cultural activity hasn’t taken place. Re- joining UNESCO practically immediately after democratic changes was a big step forward. Especially in later years of the work of this Ministry, we can detect international cultural activity with many different programs which served as promotional tool (exhibitions, performing programs, film programs, literary programs, manifestations, conferences). As stated in previous chapter, the representation of cultural programs abroad in this period increased from 1% in year 2000 to 7% in the year 2003. Therefore, the dynamics of programs abroad could be characterized as successful, at least in terms of quantity. When it comes to content of programs, we cannot say that there was articulate narrative, which is common denominator for all periods that are under this research. Instead, it seems that ad hoc narrative has been set for every particular program. Days of Serbian Culture for example was type of manifestation that embodies a lot of different, often not related or akin programs, a mixture of contemporary art (e.g. Serbian contemporary movies), selection of cultural products from
70 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 domain of cultural heritage (e.g. exhibitions of cultural artifacts), music and theatre programs, etc. It cannot be said that behind these programs some particular agenda has been set, which is important in qualifying these activities as part of cultural diplomacy.
Lack of documents from this period doesn’t allow us to go further in analysis of official strategies or plans of the Ministry. Also, there aren’t many saved reports from the media or Government itself, which started collecting press clipping of its activities in 2004. What can be underlined as important is that Đinđić’s Government realized importance of international cultural cooperation helping the work of Ministry mostly with approvals of additional funds for cultural representation abroad. Mr. Lečić testified that his personal efforts to put international cultural cooperation on list of Government’s priorities weren’t welcomed in entire Government, but that these efforts have had support from the Prime Minister himself. Also, disputes regarding human resources in the Ministry among political partners in Government which was constituted between 16 political parties also slowed down progress in the work of the Ministry; many of party leaders insisted that their candidates should be employed which resulted in conflict between the Minister who opposed that kind of employment policy and the rest of the Government. Result was that many different people in terms of political views, educational background and managerial qualities were appointed in leading positions in the field. That resulted in impossibility to create one consistent, widely accepted cultural policy and as consequence – one common cultural diplomacy strategy. Instead, the ad hoc approach has been introduced throughout this period where Ministry decided on programs and target audiences on case-by-case basis. Also, it is important to emphasize that international cultural activity of the Ministry in this period was in large part dependent on external circumstances, meaning that Ministry itself didn’t have pro-active approach to these questions – clear plan of action, in advance prepared programs or strategy – but took more passive, defensive approach.
71 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.3. Period 2004-2007
After the assassination of Zoran Đinđić and police action Saber, the new prime minister was appointed – Zoran Živković, vice president of Đinđić's Democratic Party. However, the composition of his government did not significantly differ from one before the assassination. In late 2003, new elections for parliament were announced. After elections and months of negotiations, parliamentary parties elected Vojislav Koštunica, Đinđić's biggest political opponent as new Prime Minister. He will be Serbian Prime Minister in two terms; first one, which is under focus in this part of research, lasted from March 2004 to January 2007. During this period Minister of Culture was Dragan Kojadinović. Just before this period began, Yugoslavia officially ceased to exist106, State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was proclaimed, but it also broke-up in 2006 with Montenegrin declaration of independence. This period was characterized by a new wave of Serbia’s opening to the outside world, particularly with regard to international cultural activities107. We used data from Compendium, Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe to provide following breakdown of most important events during this period.
In 2004-2007, Serbia concluded eight bilateral cooperation agreements with Croatia, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Turkey, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Egypt, Bulgaria and Algeria. A specific cooperation agreement has been concluded with Hungary regarding the protection of national minorities (Hungarians in Serbia/Serbs in Hungary). After 2005, new bilateral cooperation agreements had been concluded with Ukraine, Macedonia, China, India and Israel.
In 2007, the Cultural Contact Point for Serbia108 was officially created, as a result of the process to support European partnerships. Cultural Contact Point Serbia represents an implementation body of the Program Culture 2007-2013, working on the national level. Within the framework of cultural diplomacy, the Ministry of Culture organized the promotion of cultural heritage and contemporary art in the multilateral organizations, such as the Council of Europe in Strasbourg (photo exhibition of Serbian landscapes, 2007; concert of Philharmonic Orchestra in Strasbourg, 2007). Serbian Ministry of Culture participated
106 Yugoslavia consigned to history http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2724047.stm, accessed on 25-08-2013 107 More on this at Serbia Cultural Policy Profile, Compendium – Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/countries.php?pcid=1410, accessed on 25-08-2013 108 Cultural Contact Point Serbia, http://www.ccp-serbia.org/ccp/about-us.html, accessed on 25-08-2013 72 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
actively in all the programs relevant to the region such as MOSAIC and the Integrated Rehabilitation Project Plan; the latter conducting a survey of the architectural heritage (2003- 2006), establishing the PIL (Prioritized Intervention List) and working on a feasibility study for the creation of an Institute for Conservation and Restoration. The Ministry is also implementing projects within the framework of the CARDS program (INTERREG III).
Within the cooperation agreement with the Council of Europe, three conventions have been signed in 2007: European Landscape Convention, Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro convention) and the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. The National Museum in Belgrade has more than ten cooperation protocols with major European museums regarding the exchange of exhibitions and the exchange of curators. Within this scope of cooperation, several major projects have been realized, such as In touch with antics - with the Louvre (2006) or the exhibition of the European art collection of Belgrade National Museum in The Hague (2005). Also, the National Museum is active within ICOM and ICCROM, having signed a cooperation agreement with the latter. The first translation program has been launched in September 2007. 33 foreign publishers participated in the competition with 46 projects, out of which the Ministry supported 35. Mostly, the chosen titles are from contemporary Serbian awarded authors.
Analysis of press clipping collected for this research show us that international cultural activities of Ministry of Culture in period 2004-2007 were diverse and numerous. It seems that cultural diplomacy was dispersive, without real planning or focusing on certain group of countries, or on one country in particular. There is no pattern that was followed in terms of international cultural cooperation or cultural diplomacy.
In 2004, Serbia began participating at Frankfurt Book Fair after 12 years. It was big success for the Ministry, but also for domestic publishers. Serbia also started participating in International Thessaloniki Book Fair and Leipzig Book Fair. In the same time, Minister of Culture visited Russia, Ukraine and Slovakia promoting closer cultural relations between countries. In 2004, Serbia and Montenegro became member of EURIMAGES, European Cinema Support Fund which is the cultural support fund of the Council of Europe.
Bilateral cooperation with France in particular was very active during this period, with Minister visiting this country several times during his term. One of the big successes in this
73 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 cooperation was Festival of Serbian film which was organized in Paris three times during the period. Also, cooperation with Germany resulted in similar, but longer series of events under the name – Days of Serbo-Montenigrin Culture opened in Berlin in 2005, organized in 15 cities through-out Germany during the whole year. Similar manifestation was organized in Temishvar, Romania, but only for period of one month; in UK, when Cycle of Serbian film started showing at The Institute of Contemporary Arts, London; in Ukraine, with Days of Serbian film in Minsk.
In 2006, Serbia had first independent exhibition at Venice Biennale of Architecture as well at Venice Art Biennale with Mrđan Bajić as Serbian representative. Also in 2006, Serbia became country with observateur status at The Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). OIF was first international organization that Serbia entered after the break-up of the union with Montenegro.
Commenting on vivid international cultural activity of the Ministry, during the conference on cultural diplomacy in 2006, deputy Minister of Culture Ljiljana Šop noted that: ”Cultural diplomacy means the use of art of diplomacy in promoting a culture of values and identities of nations at bilateral and multilateral levels. Cultural diplomacy brings together local and international scholars, cultural practitioners, and representatives of national cultural institutions, Ministries of Culture and Foreign Affairs, as well as many others that deal with this topic. We can achieve excellent results in cultural diplomacy through the organization of major events and cultural activities abroad in order that through them our country becomes recognizable in the consciousness of others. Cultural diplomacy is a two-way process in which, on the one hand, the diplomatic network allows faster and more attractive form of transmission and presentation of facts, content, ideas and creators of culture from our country, and on the other hand, we are able to promote culture and the country's diplomatic interests in the political, strategic, economic and other plans and levels”.109
***
On this period, main points and directions of Serbian cultural diplomacy during his term, his views on what is most representative aspect of Serbian culture to be used as a foundation and tool of cultural diplomacy, in following chapter will speak Mr. Dragan Kojadinović, former Minister of Culture in period 2004-2007.
109 More on organizer’s website, Balkankult Foundation http://www.balkankult.org/bk/, accesed on 25-08-2013 74 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.3.1. Knight Strojimir’s Ring – Interview110 with former Minister of Culture Mr. Dragan Kojadinović111
How would you assess results of cultural diplomacy during your tenure? How did you plan the strategy for cultural diplomacy?
We had the active cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which largely organized everything that could fall into the realm of cultural diplomacy. I consider cultural diplomacy as state policy of presenting Serbian culture in the world. I was trying to make new progress in this field and I think my Ministry, due a much better financial situation than is the case today, have been successful but we often stumble on many problems and some unexpected things.
I thought that our cultural representatives in the world should stop promoting Serbia presenting our pear brandy (rakija) and some old crystal glasses, but something that will in the best way present our culture, for example monographs about Serbian churches and monasteries in Kosovo and Serbia.
As many authors have prepared monographs on our cultural heritage, we started to print it because we had a considerable budget. It turned out that sector for distribution in Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn’t have the resources to send these products, so we had to get by in other ways. Employees of the Ministry, for example, whenever traveling abroad, were assigned to bring with them these monographs. As Minister for Culture, I was doing the same thing – during my visit to the US I brought with my luggage more than 160 kg in monographs.
Maybe it sounds funny, but the 160 kg of this ‘burden’ was precious to our ambassador to the United States because no one had brought any material that would be presentation of Serbian culture in America.
You were Minister at a time when the state union of Serbia and Montenegro ceased to exist, how that reflected the activities of cultural diplomacy?
110 Interview conducted on June 27, 2013 in Belgrade 111 More about Mr. Kojadinović: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragan_Kojadinovi%C4%87, accessed on 27-06- 2013 75 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
When the administration changed completely in year 2000 it took some time to compose a new state apparatus. After that, all the powers of Yugoslavia have covered the union of Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006), although Serbia was in fact the successor of Yugoslavia. When Montenegro declared independence, Serbia had to ratify a certain number of international bilateral agreements again. However, in this period, in terms of international cultural relations activities were numerous, regardless of political circumstances. However, continuity in international cultural relations policy is the most important, and we haven’t done well in that sense.
Provide an example to illustrate the lack of continuity.
In 2006 I was in official visit to France. I spoke with the Minister of Culture of France and director of the Louvre. Our people there were thrilled because I will meet director of the Louvre because no Serbian government official has talked with the director of the Louvre before. Our meeting lasted for over three hours although it was scheduled to last 25 minutes as the director of the Louvre had to travel to Dubai to open a regional center of the Louvre in the United Arab Emirates. I tried to establish cooperation with the Louvre and asked if they were interested in opening a similar regional center of the Louvre Museum in Belgrade. He was thrilled, said that such thing is his life's ambition; it happens that he was expert on Byzantology and believed that the opening of such center in Belgrade would be very important. I said then that we can provide space of 30 thousand square meters, in place where it was supposed to be the Museum of the Revolution. The working title of center was the Pavilion of World Cultures. I thought that this space was ideal for a number of pavilions and museums that would put us at the center of cultural activities in Europe.
However, when I in 2007 passed the duty to the next minister, Mr. Vojislav Brajović, I mentioned to him that idea but nothing happened. In the following years the same director of the Louvre Museum visited Belgrade and asked what happened with that idea, no one knew what he was talking about. This is the best example of our failure to act and the discontinuity in the field of international cultural cooperation.
What were your priorities in the field of cultural diplomacy?
The first priority was to increase our presence in the international cultural scene. One of them is our participation at International Book Fair in Frankfurt. We were also present in Quebec
76 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 and in Thessaloniki Book Fair. The ministry funded numerous writers to write new novels that were later translated into other languages.
How much did you influence establishment of a system that will operate independently of your or anyone else's initiative? What kind of measures and legislation have you proposed?
I had a lot of plans, one of which was that we have to use our diplomatic missions in the world to open more cultural centers of Serbia. However, I was quite limited in these efforts; so many perspective agreements haven’t been signed. When you’re in situation where there is no continuity, with awareness that maybe treaties and international agreements signed on behalf of state will not be maintained or respected in the future by next Minister and his staff, by initiating such agreements, you risk not just your personal reputation but the reputation of the state you represent as well. You cannot have a clearly defined cultural policy, or cultural diplomacy, without clear plan for it. Despite the low budget, which is always most used excuse, I managed to secure funds for international cultural activities from state budget’s reserves.
If I understand correctly – number of initiatives and decisions in the field of cultural diplomacy were dependent on your personal initiative?
One could say that, but, next to me was very important Sector for International Cultural Cooperation in Ministry of Foreign Affairs with which I had excellent cooperation. The Minister of Culture in Serbia often has to be a good firefighter, to put out fires that occur along the way.
When you have so much to do and that amount of problems before you, that fact narrows the space for reflection on cultural diplomacy. In the future, Serbia will have to have more people who deal with cultural diplomacy, which is crucial, because during my term cultural diplomacy was dealt by small number of people.
Entire teams are needed for a successful cultural diplomacy. Our cultural diplomacy should be focused on the Diaspora, the political representatives of the country where we want to present our culture and regular audience.
77 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
How do you assess the cooperation of the Ministry with other parts of government and international organizations?
Particularly significant was collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and UNESCO. At that time, six Serbian monasteries entered the UNESCO list; we have achieved very close cooperation with UNESCO. Cooperation with Ministry of Foreign Affairs resulted in close contact with our embassies in the world and new possibilities to present our culture. Because of this cooperation, we were able to send the National Ballet to visit Canada, where we have experienced great success. But there were also unexpected problems, for example – when one of our theaters has gone to Canada, actors refused to perform more than once. When Canadian diplomats wanted to meet main actors, they refused that because they independently arranged performances of their monodrama pieces in order to ear some extra money. I’m mentioning this because our artists have to understand that in such cases they’re representing themselves and their country as well. This kind of nonsense no strategy of cultural diplomacy can predict. On Serbia, everything is still in formation, as well as the awareness of what it means to represent the country in the world.
What are the biggest obstacles to the establishment and implementation of consistent model of cultural diplomacy?
The first obstacle is money; that’s one of the most important factors. But amount of money is not crucial – crucial is that person running the Ministry has to consider important that this money should be spent for international cultural activities. I've succeeded in that because I've had excellent cooperation with Finance Minister, whom I persuaded to set aside more money for these activities.
Besides money, you need to have a clear cultural policy. Next, expanding personnel capacities and forming teams that will continuously deal with issues in the field of cultural diplomacy. Finally, you must know what you want to achieve using tools of cultural diplomacy.
How cultural diplomacy can help Serbia on its path towards membership in the EU?
The EU has made clear that culture is a priority in the process of EU integrations. There are a number of projects that Serbia can join, one of which is a joint project of cooperation between the Danube countries. However, we often hesitate, do not take initiative in these
78 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 projects due to lack of awareness that culture comes before, not after everything else, politically speaking.
On what basis strategy for cultural diplomacy of Serbia should be developed?
First, it would be necessary that at least one administration succeed in holding a full four-year term. We need a clear plan that will be carried all the way, without interruption. In other words we have to secure minimum of continuity. When you do not have a strategy, clearly defined cultural policy, the budget and always expecting new elections, you basically roam in the dark. It is foolish to expect great results and progress in these circumstances. On the other hand, we have tremendous opportunities for cultural diplomacy, but we don’t use it to the full extent.
I think that most appropriate model of cultural diplomacy for Serbia is model of the Scandinavian countries and Japan. These countries show the greatest openness to other cultures and the greatest potential for acceptance of other country’s content and cultural influences. We should look up to them.
How do we achieve that kind of success?
To achieve this, it is necessary to more appreciate our own culture. I will give an example. In 2006 we have received information that one auction house in Munich exposes the artifact of the utmost importance for the Serbian culture. Collectors have offered us to participate in the auction. Director of the Historical Museum immediately came to me and asked for money to buy artifact that represents the evidence of Serbian statehood in the 9th century. It was a ring of Knight Strojimir. After competing with the Bulgarians in the auction, we were able to buy the ring for about 20 thousand euros. This is the most important artifact of our entire culture. A few days later, the ring arrived in Belgrade. After so many centuries, we recovered artifact from the depths of the dark. On ring is scripture that says: God help Strojimir, which is evidence on the existence of our language in the ninth century. From that moment on, the ring should have been a symbol of our country. This ring should have been in the center every activity of our cultural diplomacy. Instead, Strojimir’s ring was thrown into the depths of the Historical Museum of Serbia. This is the best example of how we’re not using our most precious cultural resources. Without the use of such resources, our cultural diplomacy doesn’t have a chance for success in the world, because we do not respect our own culture at home. ●
79 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.3.2. Conclusion
During this period political shifts and changes caused by assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić didn’t bypass Ministry of Culture. For new Minister of Culture Government elected Mr. Dragan Kojadinović, candidate of political parties Serbian Renewal Movement and New Serbia which were promoting policies that included Serbian traditional values, although it can be argued that, in fact, these policies were expressions of nationalism. Work of the Ministry during this period was marked by vivid international cultural activity. It cannot be said that there was any particular strategy, especially in terms of clearly planned cultural diplomacy. Serbia’s participation in numerous international cultural events was again conducted passively, without clear aim or plan in terms of activities that would fall into realm of cultural diplomacy. It seems that most of cultural activities abroad were related or dependent to good relations with certain countries. Two main courses in this sense can be identified: promotion of Serbian culture in EU countries (especially France) and presence at regional level and countries with Serbia traditionally had good diplomatic relations (Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia). During this period close cooperation between Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Foreign affairs can be detected. This can be interpreted as good precondition for successful cultural diplomacy strategy. However, close cooperation between two Ministries didn’t result in any specific strategy of mutual action; Ministry of Culture simply used resources of Ministry of Foreign Affairs on ad hoc basis, when it needed technical and logistical support abroad.
Although Mr. Kojadinović explained that activities of cultural diplomacy were numerous during his term, it is more correct to name it as activities of international cultural cooperation, concepts often misunderstood and equated by Serbian Ministers of Culture. We can say that activities that can be named as cultural diplomacy was dispersive, even accidental, without real planning or focusing on certain group of countries, or on one country in particular. There was no pattern that was followed in terms of international cultural cooperation or cultural diplomacy. However, number of programs presented in France stand out. There were three consecutive Festivals of Serbian Film, participation of Serbia at book fairs in Paris and several official visits by Minister Kojadinović during his term, but we cannot say that this was result of planned cultural diplomacy strategy in France. Despite this close cooperation and sort of focus on France, there aren’t any continious activities that could in a long term quarantee promotion of closer ties between two countries.
80 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
As it comes to predominant narratives in programs which promoted Serbian culture abroad, they seem to be mostly marked by traditional narratives emphasizing Serbian heritage. Minister Kojadinović believed that best representative of Serbian culture abroad are products such as monographs of Serbian monasteries in Kosovo, historical artifacts, and similar which is a clear indicator of which cultural potential he thought that should be used as a tool for cultural diplomacy.
Participation of Serbia at international book fairs (Frankfurt, Thessaloniki, Paris), Venice Biennale, as well as steps towards joining Eurimages, OIF and other important international and regional organizations, programs and initiatives, were a step forward in promotion of Serbian culture, but again, they were not part of articulated plan of the Ministry itself. Although without clear strategy or desired goals to be achieved, it seems that Ministry succeeded in efforts to reconnect Serbia to international cultural scene; but, it should be empahsized that these efforts resulted in quantity of programs abroad, not necessairly in quality of created ties with international partners or public.
81 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.4. Period 2007-2008
New Constitution has been adopted in the year 2006 which was followed by new elections for Parliament. After elections and many months of negotiations between political parties so called Second Vojislav Koštunica’s government was introduced. It will last for only a year when new political circumstances (Kosovo declaration of independence) will cause political crisis in country when new elections have taken place. In this short period, Ministry of Culture was led by Mr. Vojislav Brajović, prominent Serbian actor. He was appointed by Democratic Party as independent candidate meaning that he wasn’t member of any political party at the moment. Selection of Mr. Brajović as Minister of Culture was praised as move in the right direction. In our analysis of activities of Ministry of Culture regarding cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation in this period we will use documents provided by Mr. Branislav Dimitrijević, former assistant of Minister for international cultural cooperation. Documents are related to work of Sector for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture.
Report on the work of Ministry of Culture in the year 2007
In accordance with Resolution of the Government during 2007-2008, 35 subgroups of the Expert Group on Coordination of EU accession were formed. Subgroup of Education and Culture is formed within the Ministry of Education, and Ministry of Culture actively participated in the preparation of reports of the National Programme for Integration (NPI), which relates to cultural issues. The paper covering culture describes legal framework of the regulations, the institutional framework, short-term and medium-term priorities with regard to the legal and institutional framework, as well as brief information on accessing the EU Program Culture 2007-2013. Given that this was a draft, which each relevant ministry submitted, it is essential that in future amendments and updates make improvement of these suggestions.
Program Culture 2007-2013.
Internal procedures were implemented both within the relevant services of the European Commission and the Republic of Serbia (fetching the opinion of the competent authorities and the government's conclusions regarding the financial contribution of Serbia and the basis for the conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding to participate in Program Culture 2007-2013). The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and the 82 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Republic of Serbia on the participation of the Republic of Serbia in the European Union Program Culture 2007-2013 was adopted. From that moment, by accessing the aforementioned communitarian program, users, and cultural operators from Serbia, whether it is a public or civil society, can directly, as bearers of a particular project, to compete for the funds of the European Commission.
In the period preceding the formal involvement in this program, the Ministry of Culture organized two seminars (July and September 2007), in which attended representatives from the Cultural Contact Point (CCP) from Austria, Hungary, Sweden and Croatia. In addition, the Ministry issued a brochure entitled On the way to Europe, which was distributed to all potential users (governmental institutions and civil society).
Cultural Contact Point
According to the criteria of the EU, after the official inclusion of the Program Culture 2007- 2013, the obligation of each country is to form a body (CCP) at the national level. In 2007, Serbia officially introduced its on Cultural Contact Point which acts at the Department of cultural Development in Belgrade. Priority tasks of this body is to promote program and foster participation in the program, to maintain permanent contacts with various institutions and organizations providing support to the field of culture and to provide information to potential applicants for financial assistance.
Since January 2008, CCP has acted with great success by organizing informative and educational seminars and presentations in several towns in Serbia. CCP team works in collaboration with similar offices in countries that have joined the program, and hired representatives of these offices for their informative and educational activities and also participated in conferences and seminars in the EU. Ministry of Culture in the first year of official participation in the Program Culture 2007-2013, faced problems with payment of the annual contribution. Therefore, the Ministry of Culture requested from Ministry of Finance for the budget reserve to pay its share but it was rejected.
Cooperation with the Council of Europe
Cooperation with the Council of Europe was primarily marked by Serbian six-month chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe. In addition, number of cultural activities are organized on this occasion in Strasbourg (exhibitions, concerts), great
83 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 success was also event organized for the Central European Heritage Day (in cooperation with the City of Belgrade). In addition to cultural program, international round table on common heritage of Europe in motion was organized. Ministry of Culture with Council of Europe also organized Regional Conference of Ministers of South-East Europe responsible for cultural affairs on improving intercultural dialogue. Main result was the White Paper of Council of Europe in which formulation participated 139 representatives of governments and NGOs in SEE. Year 2008 has been declared the year of intercultural dialogue at the European level, so Ministry of Culture has been implementing projects in collaboration with cultural organization REX in Belgrade, which resulted in exhibition We, They, All in Serbian Cultural Center in Paris, as well as the mapping program and support to projects that deal with intercultural dialogue.
Eurimages
Due the cooperation of the Ministry with Council of Europe, Serbian film industry has received significant support from the Eurimages Fund for Cinematography, which in this period supported three co-productions. Given the need to appoint a permanent representative in Eurimages, whose appointment wouldn’t depend on the change of government, and the fact that national representatives of the Eurimages are mostly professionals in the field of film production, it would be expedient to appoint a new representative to be fully devoted to this important work from which the Serbian film industry has benefited greatly. It is important to point out that the Serbian film industry is one of the most successful when it comes to the allocation of funds from the fund. For example, the annual contribution of the Serbia’s Eurimages membership is around 103,000 euros; three films in the first year of membership received 750,000 euros from the Eurimages budget.
Bilateral cooperation and other projects
Special Group for bilateral relations exists within the Department for contemporary art in the Ministry of Culture, so these issues are not responsibilities of Department of international relations. However, the nature of work and the inability to accurately distinguish the domain of multilateral relations and bilateral cooperation, part of the work for bilateral cooperation was performed in the Department of International Relations, as well. This particularly applies to those countries with which Serbia demonstrates a high degree of cultural cooperation (Italy, France, Slovenia, Austria, Sweden, China, Japan).
84 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
In 2007, Ministry launched an initiative to establish a new and transparent procedure that would improve the performance of Serbia at Venice Biennale, this prestigious art and architectural event. Given that in the past there were a lot of complaints regarding the presentation of Serbia in the Biennale, Ministry accepted suggestion that new selection procedure is essential. The new procedure is proposed where commissioners appointed by the Minister for Culture deal with organization of projects selection and the budget, but do not decide on the very selection of projects. Five-member Advisory Council consisted of professionals in the field of architecture and contemporary art decide of selected projects based on declared public open call for projects which precisely explains the requirements and criteria for selection. Participation of representatives of Serbia in international conferences and cultural events was encouraged by the Ministry in this period. Since 2007 Ministry of Culture is introducing the possibility that during the whole year artists and cultural professionals who are invited to an important international meeting or event can apply for funds. In accordance with the financial capability and assessing the importance of a particular meeting or event, the Minister makes a decision on co-financing one's performance. In this way, Ministry tends to support the creative individuals and professionals recognized internationally and therefore enhance the reputation of the country in the world.
***
In following interview, former Minister of Culture Mr. Vojislav Brajović will share his thoughts and opinions of how cultural diplomacy was conducted in this short, but vivid period.
85 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.4.1. Every Citizen is a Cultural Diplomat – Interview112 with former Minister of Culture Mr. Vojislav Brajović113
What were main policy directions of the Ministry of Culture during your term in the field of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation?
Our activities were directed through the state agenda of joining the European Union. With presentation of Serbian culture in particular we have tried to present our cultural legacy as part of European civilization and culture. I thought it was necessary to nurture outstanding individuals and encourage others to freely create and become representatives of our culture in the world. My opinion is that our most important artists are tool for change of our image as a country that was excluded from the world. Our culture is not only our own, it is part of European and world culture, that's why I felt it was necessary to have appropriate and adequate presentation of our culture in the world.
Could you provide some illustrative examples of that presentation?
The period in which I was Minister was very short, only 13 months, and during that time we could not do much. I can not single out anything in particular but I will tell you one good example from the past that I thought could be a guideline for us at that time. Yugoslav leadership in 1950s found itself on crossroad, due to conflict with the Soviet Union. Political elite of that time made a good decision – Yugoslavia should represent to the world its diverse and exciting culture, creativity and art. It was a very effective policy which provided a great civilization progress of our culture. There was openness for innovative and avant-garde artists, and this has affected our cultural creators. It affected our reputation as well; we were one of the most welcoming countries in the world for other cultures. During the period when I was Minister, I insisted that we must not allow any closure Serbia of in relations towards the outside world.
Do you think that model of cultural diplomacy in Tito's Yugoslavia is applicable in Serbia today?
I would gladly say yes, but I cannot get over the fact that it was Tito's Yugoslavia, in political sense. However, this model gave probably the best results in our recent history. Tito was a
112 Interview conducted on June 29, 2013 in Belgrade 113 More about Mr. Brajović: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vojislav_Brajovi%C4%87, accessed on 29-06-2013 86 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
big brake for creativity in Yugoslavia, but in this sense – smart and thoughtful strategy in cultural policy towards the world – yes, I think that even today some of it could be used. Every successful model should be followed and improved. Adaptation of Yugoslav model and putting it in contemporary context might produce surprising results.
How do you see actors of cultural diplomacy and how much did you personally contribute to the transformation of previous policies?
I believe that each individual is carrier of cultural diplomacy. I think that cultural diplomacy is inextricably linked to the education which must be in accordance to the general cultural policy of the country. Every person who leaves the country can be a good cultural diplomat. However, our policies from fields of education and culture are often in no relation what so ever, which is completely wrong. The best example is when you ask young people who their role models are, this is exactly where you can see failure of educational but also cultural policies. When they leave the country, these young people also represent the state and its culture. They must be part of a broader strategy that would relate to culture and education in the same time.
Is there continuity between your ministry and those before yours? What are the major differences?
I was focused exclusively on placing professionals on key places in the Ministry; I think that was the biggest difference from the previous formation of Ministry of Culture. I was aware that I wasn’t expert for lot of issues, so I called the most recognized experts to assist the work of the Ministry. My desire was to create continuity in work of Ministry of Culture and I insisted that all projects started during former Ministry continue its activities. Also, we were directed to the closer cooperation with the European Union, and achieved great success in that cooperation. I can’t understand how come that we didn’t become a member of the EU during my term.
Unfortunately, success of Ministry of Culture is not enough to get EU membership. What would you single out as the most successful part of your work?
Our cooperation with UNESCO, for example, was exceptional, we have achieved tremendous results. However, I would say that the project 17 Roman emperors who were born in this region was the most successful project in the field of cultural diplomacy. I want to say that
87 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
we started preparing the anniversary of the Edict of Milan that today represents an excellent example of cultural diplomacy Serbia.
Since you were Minister only for about a year, did you manage to work on creating coherent strategy of cultural diplomacy?
Time went by so fast, my colleagues have written a large number of law propositions, we held numerous public debates, my colleagues were satisfied with the atmosphere in the Ministry and freedom to work and create. However, the political situation affected us all, so a lot of work remained unfinished. Among those planned, but unwritten ideas and strategies must have been a strategy for cultural diplomacy, but it just did not come on the table in time.
How would you qualify cooperation between the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Foreign Affairs? How much did activities of cultural diplomacy depend on your initiative?
There was absolute compliance between two Ministries. I and Minister for Foreign Affairs were nominated to the post by the same political party, so it was logical that the two of us work closely together. We were in compliance, but in Ministry of Culture there was an absolute harmony. I have to say that the activities did depend on my initiative and other people from the Ministry of Culture, although it was one mutual vision. Policies of the Ministry of Culture and Foreign Affairs were also, in a sense, agreed. For example, when we were visited by the President of the Council of Europe and other officials, we were always welcoming them together. Foreign officials and especially those from the EU were always expressing their satisfaction with cooperation with the Ministry of Culture and successes we have achieved. But, since the Prime Minister was against cooperation with the European Union, which was quite strange situation for us all in the Ministry. First bilateral agreement that my Ministry initiated was agreement on cultural cooperation with, in that time, recently declared independent Republic of Montenegro. It was very important cultural and diplomatic move.
What were the main obstacles in formulation of strategy for cultural policy and cultural diplomacy?
The inability of the Government to understand and recognize the importance of culture and the possibilities of using culture diplomacy as a tool, that culture can help in achieving
88 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 foreign policy goals. There was not that kind of thinking in the government of Vojislav Koštunica, and I would say that even today we didn’t progress any further.
Is it important to formulate strategy of cultural diplomacy in the context of EU integrations of Serbia?
I think this cultural diplomacy can be one of the best means for approaching the European Union. Culture connects people, different religions, ideologies, it build the best possible bridges.
How declaration of independence of Republic of Kosovo affected work of your Ministry?
I the time when Kosovo declared independence, we forgot that Serbia during the nineties lost its reputation in the world fighting to keep something that was an illusion. Instead of being support to the other republics from Slovenia to Kosovo, we opposed their will to be independent countries. Serbia should have been guarantor of the independence of all the former Yugoslav republics. The ratio of state policy towards Kosovo's independence has been a failure in every sense, so it was in terms of cultural policy as well. Cultural exchange between Serbia and Kosovo is still practically forbidden, which is a big loss. Similar thing happened when Montenegro declared its independence. In all these occasions we went towards closing ourselves in relation to our neighbors and the world, rather than the other way around. We should have taken advantage of the political events and used them as an opportunity to promote not to degrade our culture.
Which model of cultural diplomacy you find most appropriate for Serbia?
Having in mind our context, I think it's important to nurture cultural institutions that produce elite culture, and by that I mean the most important national cultural institutions. This does not mean ignoring local institutions, on the contrary. On the other hand, when we talk about cultural diplomacy, we must approach the world with an open heart. In short, the most successful model would be one that would exclude political and ideological influences in the sphere of formulating cultural policy and cultural diplomacy.●
89 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.4.2. Conclusion
During this period some positive shifts in terms of creating preconditions for creating cultural diplomacy strategy were made. New Minister of Culture immediately after taking office appointed many prominent experts for his advisors and deputies responsible for many different fields. Mr. Branislav Dimitrijević became responsible for International cultural cooperation. From conversation with him conducted for means of this master thesis114 we can conclude that working environment in the Ministry became friendly towards initiatives that could have caused thorough strategy for cultural diplomacy. He will over live the Ministry of Mr. Brajović and continue to work with following Minister of Culture Mr. Nebojša Bradić. However, he left office in 2009 due, as he said: „Personal feeling that I wasn’t able to do everything that I wanted in the Ministry due to differences in opinions among officials in the Ministry regarding general direction of work and foundations of cultural policy“. Although basic preconditions for formulating clear strategy for cultural diplomacy were accomplished, the strategy itself wasn’t one of the priorities in the work of Ministry. Ministry was focused on internal questions, such as work on Law for Culture, creating preconditions for debates regarding issues from domain of cultural policy, etc.
However, this period was marked by intensive international activity of the Ministry in terms of joining EU program Culture 2007-2013 and establishing national bodies for this purpose, e.g. Subgroup of Education and Culture on Coordination of EU accession and Cultural Contact Point. Focus of international cultural cooperation in this period was on EU countries and EU institutions on one hand, and on the other Ministry was focusing its international activity to regional initiatives and cooperation (cooperation with South-East Europe countries, re-establishing official ties with Montenegro, etc.) This is clear indicator of two main streams of policy of the Ministry: closer cooperation with neighbours and fostering Serbia’s chances in its EU integrations process. Although international cultural activities were again conducted in general, not strategically planned manner, they at least were focused on a group of countries under one broadly accepted goal, which was in accordance with highest foreign policy goal – integration to the European Union.
From press clipping analysis we can conclude that presence of Serbian culture on international scene was achieved mainly through already established channels and well known tools: regular participation on international book fairs, exhibitions in EU and Council
114 Interview conducted on July 18th 2013 in Belgrade 90 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
of Europe premises, several film festivals (USA, France). In that sense, we can say that Ministry in this period didn’t undertake specific actions that could open some additional space on international cultural scene for Serbian culture, or in any country in particular. It seems that this period was marked by steady walk on already determined paths of cooperation with other countries. Ministry continued to support various programs that had impact on its international cultural cooperation such as publishing and translation activities in order to promote domestic authors abroad or supporting participation of domestic experts in professional development programs and conferences abroad.
This period is specific because it was also marked with political tensions caused by declaration of independence of Republic of Kosovo, former Serbian province. This political event caused change in general policy of the Government that affected work of the Ministry of Culture as well; this change can be illustrated by its relation with Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Interdepartmental cooperation with Ministry of Foreign Affairs can be characterized as, as Mr. Brajović said, absolute compliance. However, Mr. Branislav Dimitrijević, Minister’s deputy for international cultural cooperation in interview conducted for this research offered different insight: “Communication with Ministry of Foreign Affairs was terrible. Minister of Foreign Affairs was very authoritative towards Ministry of Culture, issuing directives how officials of Ministry of Culture should behave on international conferences or events, especially when representatives of Kosovo were present”.
We can conclude that foreign policy of Ministry of Culture in this period was affected by general foreign policy which was carried out by Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but not as part of mutual consent between two Ministries, but more as directive. This resulted in lack of freedom in the work of Ministry of Culture which had to obey and respect official policy regarding cooperation with countries which recognized independent Republic of Kosovo.
Overall, although with reduced and hampered activity, this period was significant for creating the preconditions in the Ministry itself for following Ministers to continue work on creating policies regarding international cultural cooperation and cultural diplomacy.
91 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.5. Period 2008-2011
Main difference between this period and all others is the fact that government elected in 2008 succeeded to last whole 4-year-long mandate although it was, near the end of its mandate, reconstructed. This is the most long-lived government since year 2000. In Serbian political life, government ruled in this period is called First Cvetković’s Government, which was later reconstructed in 2011. Reconstruction will bring changes in government structure, the Prime Minister and most of the Ministers will remain the same, but changes will occur in Ministry of Culture, bringing new Minister in position. From 2008 to 2011, Minister of Culture was theater director and manager Mr. Nebojša Bradić. In our analysis of activities of Ministry of Culture regarding cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation in this period we will again use documents provided by Branislav Dimitrijević, former assistant of Minister Bradić for international cultural cooperation. Documents are related to work of Sector for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture. We will also recall the publication Serbia in the World which was published by the Ministry in 2010, which is a break-down of most important facts regarding cultural diplomacy and international cultural activities of the Ministry.
Program Serbia in the World
The work of the Ministry of Culture in this period was characterized by intense international activity in all fields of culture and media. Cooperation in culture also became increasingly important in the development of international relations and improving Serbia’s image in the world. For the first time since 2000, Ministry systematically approached to the problem of establishing a system of visibility and recognition of Serbian culture and possible influence of Serbian culture abroad. There was a reform in the structure of the Ministry, organizational and staffing changes took place, which were requirements for creative and effective participation in international cultural exchange. The ministry has created two compatible programs – Serbia in the World and the World in Serbia. First one served as a vehicle for the presentation of contemporary cultural production and cultural heritage in the world and second one was imagined as program which will open space on domestic cultural scene for cultural influences, innovations and cooperation from abroad.
When it comes to international cultural activities in this period, the Ministry has organized a number of events abroad. Some of them are: Days of Serbian Culture in Ukraine, China,
92 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Bulgaria, Montenegro (2009), close cooperation with UNESCO and the Serbian Cultural Centre in Paris, where exhibitions and other programs were organized, Days of Serbian Culture in Egypt, China, Russia, Turkey, Germany, participation in book fairs in Leipzig, Thessaloniki, Frankfurt, Vienna and Sofia, participation in the Venice Biennale and Bienalle in Beijing, the exhibition at the European Parliament in Brussels (2010). In 2011, the Ministry has supported 45 projects involving folkloric events, assemblies of folk art and the preservation and presentation of traditional values of Serbian culture. Days of Serbian Film took place in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Likewise, Ministry has conducted series of cultural activities in the region, such as visits to Serbian music ensembles in Croatia and Montenegro. As in 2010, Serbia has participated in numerous international book fairs.
According to Compendium – Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe115, in 2009 the Ministry of Culture launched the pilot project Cultural route – Fortresses on the Danube, dedicated to the improvement of the capacities of the local communities in Serbia. The project encompassed seven cities and the most visible result was an exhibition which was promoted by the Ministry in many foreign countries and cities along the Danube (Germany – Ulm, Ingolstadt; Romania – Turnu Severin, France – UNESCO, Paris; Belgium – EC, Brussels, and there are some more plans). Nowadays, the project is enlarged and will include 12 cities in Serbia along the Danube that will collaborate with international partners on specific issues.
In July 2009, the first Protocol between the Republic of Serbia and the German region of Baden-Wuertemberg was signed. The second one was signed in October 2011. Both encompass a range of activities including culture. A specific Protocol in the field of research, preservation and conservation was also signed in August 2010 between the Ministry of Culture and the European Danube Academy in Ulm. A similar Joint Commission which encompasses the field of culture and arts exists also with the German lander Bavaria. The last session of the Commission was on October 2010, in Munich, celebrating 40 years of cooperation between Serbia and Bavaria. One of the most significant events during this period was the ratification of the UNESCO Convention for the promotion and protection of cultural diversity on 29th May 2009.
115 More on this at Serbia Cultural Policy Profile, Compendium – Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/countries.php?pcid=1410, accessed on 02-09-2013 93 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Regional and EU cooperation
One of the priorities of the Ministry was regional cooperation. It continuated to actively participate in the work of Council of Ministers of South East Europe, and supported the inclusion of culture in the Central European Initiative. In this respect, the Ministry of Culture is working with other relevant ministries from the region to establish a Regional Fund for Cinematography. In 2011, the Belgrade Declaration, the seventh joint declaration of the Ministers of Culture of South-Eastern Europe on the promotion of cultural heritage for dialogue, was signed, focusing on contemporary art production – as a heritage for the future. The most important event in the domain of European integration was the signing of the MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the Commission of the European Communities and the Ministry of Culture of Serbia (6th February 2008 in Brussels). In October 2007, the Cultural Contact Point for Serbia was officially created outside of the Ministry, as a result of the process to support European partnerships. But, there is no special mobility fund or funding available to pay network fees or to make financial contributions as partners in international projects. However, organisations that succeed in applying to the Programme Culture 2007-2013 were assured that they will receive the adequate financial contribution from the Ministry. The official inclusion in the Program Culture 2007-2013 for Serbia is an extremely important moment and it opens many possibilities for cultural development. In 2009, there were 9 international projects in which organisations from Serbia were partners and received a grant from the European Commission, but it was difficult to secure their financial contribution to projects, in spite of funds agreed. In the year of Books and Literature (March 2010-March 2011), program The Ambassador's Choice was established to promote Serbian writers in different countries through the embassies and professional partner organisations abroad. Serbian publishing house Geopoetica was supported by the Ministry to publish the chosen ten Serbian contemporary authors in English. In March 2011, Serbia was a Country in Focus at Leipzig Book Fair, which presented around 50 contemporary authors.
***
It seems that Ministry in this period had clear plan, strategies and priorities regarding international culutral cooperation, although written tracks of such strategies and plans are not available. On critical issues regarding international culural cooperation, plans, obstacles and challenges in the work of the Ministry in this regard, following chapter is testimony of Mr. Zoran Hamović, former special advisor of former Minister of Culture Mr. Nebojša Bradić.
94 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.5.1. Serbia in the World – Interview116 with Mr. Zoran Hamović, former special advisor of former Minister of Culture Mr. Nebojša Bradić117
How would you assess the achievements of cultural diplomacy before your tenure?
Both before and after this period (2008-2012) general qualification is that international cultural activities of the Ministry were mainly conducted with inadequate preparation and actors, with honorable exceptions, and accordingly we have achieved very modest results in this field. There is neither knowledge nor responsibility of people within the Ministry for participating in international cultural conferences and similar events and activities. As consequence, we have tragic results of this type of communication with the outside world because. We barely managed to achieve a physical presence at major international cultural events. Results of our cultural diplomacy are very modest and poor. We are, at best, passive participants in international forums and cultural circles. Therefore, the results in this area are devastating.
What were the activities of the Ministry in this regard during your tenure?
Our activities were in the first place related to those obligations that were previously undertaken by the Ministry. I mean the bilateral and multilateral agreements that we continued to apply. We felt that the potential for Serbian international cultural activity is very promising, especially in terms of linking culture and economy, and their mutual influence. We made a plan that consisted of three parts: Serbia in the World, World in Serbia and Serbia in Serbia. We announced the publication of the international activities of the Ministry where we showed which were the most effective activities.
What were priorities of Serbia in the World part of your program?
Since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was actually not developing international cultural activity, we practically on our own initiative took that part of the job, in terms of activities. We felt no need for a single department for international cooperation; instead, we thought that all parts of the Ministry have to be involved in it. Also, we found that the activities of Serbia in the World and World in Serbia are compatible. We tried to bring in as many professionals from abroad and connect them with local staff, artists, experts and cultural
116 Interview conducted on July 3, 2013 in Belgrade 117 More about Mr. Bradić: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neboj%C5%A1a_Bradi%C4%87, accessed on 03-07- 2013 95 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
practitioners in order to improve the activity of the Ministry and modernize it. Cooperation with UNESCO has been quite successful; we organized many important and visited exhibitions during major international cultural events.
In what amount these activities depended on your initiative and the initiative of the Minister? Is there any basis that you have inherited from previous groups that led the Ministry of Culture?
When we took office, we were faced with large passive and reactive activities of the Ministry. We are the first to introduce active and initiative based relationship towards the work of the Ministry. Before us, in the Ministry, nobody considered international cultural cooperation as necessary activity except in terms of a reactive, passive activity. It can be said that the activities in this regard depended of our personal initiative. This was necessary, not only for the purpose of overcoming the gap that was created before us, but also to create a system that would remain after us and that would work. Shortly before our arrival, during term of Minister Vojislav Brajović, some initial steps were made in this sense. We continued work but also improved the system. We wanted to act proactively and to manage things. We have created strategic objectives and produced system and methodology for their implementation. We did not want just to meet existing obligations but to create new directions of the Ministry in this regard.
How lack of continuity in the work of Ministry affects the successful implementation of international cultural activities?
This is a very important issue; it seems to me that this continuity after our term was jeopardized. Today, these activities in the media and elsewhere can be hardly seen. International cooperation is almost invisible, which doesn’t mean it does not exist, but it is reasonable to assume that its reduced in intensity. Sporadic information coming from the Ministry or the media are not sufficient to assess the quality of our current international cultural cooperation, but the fact is that if the intensity and quality of the cooperation is at a high level, the public would certainly know that.
How did you see relationship between cultural and public diplomacy? Was there cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
Generally we had very good relations with Ministry of Foreign Affairs which helped us coordinate our activities with Serbian embassies around the world. However, as soon as you 96 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
start talking about the professional relationship, plans for further and closer cooperation, the situation is changed. Everything is mostly limited to officials’ visits and that is where it ends. Cooperation was quite correct, but I think this is not enough.
What was the focus of international cultural activities of the Ministry in this period? Who was target audience and why?
We felt that the diaspora is welcome in these activities; however, we are not responsible for relations with diaspora because there was a Ministry of Diaspora with whom we also closely worked. The diaspora has helped us in dealing with strangers abroad, but that cooperation was sporadic and disorganized. We wanted to create a bridge between the Ministry of Culture to our people in the world who would have help us produce cultural events in places where we have not been so much active. We never considered diaspora as our goal, rather than tool to reach out to others. The aim was true effect of international cultural cooperation and cultural diplomacy – to impact individuals and institutions of the state in which we operate in order for them to be properly informed, to create sympathy for Serbia and to create long lasting relationships. A good example of close and good cooperation is with France.
Was the focus of these efforts directed only to EU member states or did you go wider than that?
We set up two goals (beside relations with EU countries) – the relationship with countries that we share similar linguistic heritage and relationship with major powers (China, Russia, the United States, the Arab world). In this sense, translating activity of the Ministry was one of the priorities. However, there was a problem of lack of quality translators and experts who could have help us in these endeavors. For any successful cooperation there must be established and sustained a number of groups of people who represent bridges to others in the world. We often establish trusting relationships with international institutions but quickly squander that trust. This is happening due often changes in the Ministry. As you are aware, incoming Minister by the rule changes the entire staff of the previous Ministry, so no one has an obligation to respect earlier made commitments and fulfill contractual obligations. This custom as a result undermines the reputation of the Ministry, but also undermines the reputation of the entire country. We were working on introducing models that would bring different and better results.
97 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
What were the main elements of this model?
We analyzed examples of good practices and successful experiences of other countries and wanted to adopt everything that was good and applicable to our context. We wanted to eliminate the factor of money and to create a new funding model. We set strategic goals and from that tried to consolidate economic and political parameters that are necessary for implementation. Then, we started to animate professionals to join us. Number of qualified and educated people is very low in our country and because of that associates were hard to find. We encountered problems in cooperation with national institutions in charge of cooperation with international institutions such as the Office of UNESCO, because many of these institutions had their own logic and methods that didn’t match with ours. This created a blockage in realization of our goals, and often resulted in low-quality projects, improvisation and amateurism. During this period, along with operating Serbian Cultural Centre in Paris, we had planned to open the Cultural Center in Berlin, Vienna and Brussels. We considered this as very important; however, we did not succeed. This of course is not the only objective that we did not achieve.
Why? What were the biggest obstacles?
General political situation has a crucial impact on the achievement of any objectives in the field of cultural policy. On the other hand, our mandate took place in the midst of the economic crisis, and the expenditures for culture were low. However, the absence of state strategies in this regard, absence of efficient and operating system of institutions may be the most important reasons for ours and everybody else’s failure. Motivation and dedication of employees in Ministry of Culture also play very important role, because employees of the Ministry does not see themselves as active participants in this process, but as part of a slow, sluggish bureaucratic apparatus that despite its inactivity managed to survive. The lack of education among staff in the Ministry is also a big obstacle for high-quality international cultural cooperation which requires engaged, active, educated and highly motivated staff. Non-governmental organizations and private initiatives can also be our chance, because these people by themselves raise money or approach the Ministry in order to promote themselves and their products of culture. Public sector could learn a lot from the third sector, which seems almost subversive both in the country and abroad.
98 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
How the activities of cultural diplomacy can be used in the function of the European integration of Serbia?
EU integration should be understood not as goal but as a tool, instrument for improvement of our own business environment and the establishment of a functioning system in which the work of our Ministry and the development of culture could flourish. During my mandate, we presented and adopted the draft of Law on Culture, which was very significant event. After the law it was planned a number of secondary legislation to be adopted, however, it did not happen, and the law is now practically unapplied. There hasn’t been new practice; every single actor in our culture behaves through inertia of the old practice, that’s the main reason for failure of the Law. But it is very important to emphasize that there is no oversight body that could verify and sanction failure of actors to comply with the law. These are the main reasons for non-compliance or non-application of the Law on culture. EU integration for us was very challenging because it was one of the most important segments of our work. We have taken extensive action in this regard, particularly in the area of legal regulation and jurisdiction of the Ministry and harmonization with EU standards. We wanted that when we get a date for opening accession negotiations with the EU, at least regulation regarding culture is fully in compliance with the EU standards.
Do you believe that basics for cultural diplomacy that you have set up have been applied after you left the Ministry?
The biggest problem is that we don’t see results of the Ministry; we do not know if there are any results in the field. Everybody is talking about the lack of money, but it is important to understand that every Minister of Culture has to fight for more money from the budget with his authority and realistic work plan. Currently, I do not see how nor does any of mechanism that we have established work, because it seems that international cultural activities are very sporadic and completely invisible to the general public. I believe that there is a lack of understanding that all products of culture should be designed in such manner that can be used as a tool for cultural diplomacy; as a medium of exchange in the international cultural cooperation with foreign countries. This is the only way to achieve the objectives of this whole decade – to change image of Serbia abroad, establish lasting connections and relationships with partners in the region, the European Union and in other parts of the world.●
99 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.5.2. Conclusion
This period was characterized with more political stability than any other since year 2000. Government with Prime Minister Cvetković lasted for full four years long mandate, with a reconstruction in its last year. Period of political stability secured preconditions for more stable and planned cultural policy as well. As far as international cultural cooperation and cultural diplomacy are concerned, for the first time since year 2000 some written strategies were adopted. Program Serbia in the World was most significant in this sense because it represents first written plan of the Ministry on international cultural activities. Effects and quality of the program aside, this program is important regarding introduction of practice which isn’t just randomly conducted activities when opportunity arises. Focusing its attention on presentation of Serbian culture in member countries of the EU, and especially the most powerful and influential ones, was a deliberately effort in improving Serbia’s position in processes of negotiation with the EU. However, this doesn’t seem to be a rule for whole Government. Political conditions that Serbia hasn’t been able to fulfill paused integration processes. Ministry of Culture had enough independence in its work to continue its own activities, although influence of Ministry of Foreign Affairs was noticeable in the first year of its mandate. Relation with Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to be very formal, without any substantial cooperation in terms of cultural diplomacy. Mr. Hamović explained in the interview above that cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was satisfactorily but nothing more than that.
It can be detected that cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation of the Ministry in this period was focused on three major groups of countries: the EU countries, countries that Serbia share similar linguistic heritage (ex-Yugoslav, Balkan countries), and major powers (China, Russia, the United States, the Arab world). Translation activity of the Ministry and presentation of Serbian literature on various international book fairs was most used tool for promotion.
All resources available to the Ministry were used in efforts of improving cultural presence of Serbia in major European cultural centers and institutions of European Union, which is clear evidence of continuation of supporting general pro-EU tendencies from the side of the Ministry. From press clipping, we can see that EU integration was one of the most important segments of work of the Ministry. Numerous cultural events abroad that Minister Bradić was visiting, many official visits to colleagues from European countries, his presence on many
100 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
major cultural events, etc. testify on devotion of the Ministry to EU integration processes. On the other hand, we can detect extensive action in the area of legal regulation and jurisdiction of the Ministry and harmonization with EU standards. The most important event in the domain of European integration was the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission of the European Communities and the Ministry of Culture of Serbia.
Very good sign for further development of cultural diplomacy strategy was proposition for opening Serbian Cultural Centers in Vienna, Berlin and Brussels. However, due to political circumstances, economic crisis and other obstacles, this idea remained unfulfilled. We can say that officials responsible for international cultural cooperation showed initiative in creating environment aboard which would serve as permanent scene for cultural products from Serbia.
As it comes to content of programs presented abroad, this period isn’t much different from previous ones. Very diverse selection of programs was supported, both with modern and more traditional narratives. It seems that Ministry of Culture didn’t put much effort in making clear selection of the programs, in comparison with creating opportunities for presentation of Serbian culture internationally.
Good relations with regional partners were further developed which had positive effects on cultural presentation in SEE countries. This culminated in Serbia’s chairing of Council of SEE Ministers of Culture which also had very positive effect to its reputation and opened new possibilities for maintaining close relationships with regional counterparts.
Overall, this period can be rated as most successful one since year 2000 in terms of success of international cultural cooperation and cultural diplomacy. It was characterized by prudently formulated program which was carried out continuously, without interruption. Although the programs of the Ministry didn’t have clearly set goals and objectives, it can be said that the Ministry succeeded to put things into perspective and act continuously at least on one issue – EU integrations and improving position of Serbia in EU accession process by using tools of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation.
101 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.6. Period 2011-2012
The last period of this research refers mainly to year 2011. In that time reconstruction of Government took place, so the Second Cvetković’s Government (named after Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković) was elected in Parliament. Previous formation of Government suffered some political changes and replacements of some ministers. One of them was Minister of Culture Mr. Nebojša Bradić who was succeeded by Mr. Predrag Marković who was appointed as new Minister of Culture. Mr. Marković took office in situation where new elections were set to occur in the following year marking the end of first government since year 2000 which succeeded to survive the full 4-year long mandate.
Due to short period that is under the research and lack of documents testifying on activities related to international cultural cooperation and cultural diplomacy of the Ministry of Culture we will use available documents provided by the Ministry and press clipping created for this research.
One very important event for cultural policy in Serbia generally speaking took place in 2011. That was constitution of National Council for Culture. The Government of the Republic of Serbia on the proposal of the Ministry of Culture proposed to the National Assembly four members of the National Council for Culture, who is elected on the proposal of the Government, which has a completed list of proposed members of this body. Serbian parliament elected members of the National Council for Culture. Start of the work of the National Council is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of Law on culture.
During the 2011th in Belgrade, in cooperation with the UNESCO Office in Venice, Ministry organized an expert conference on the protection of intangible cultural heritage under the title From national implementation to the regional cooperation. The conference was attended by experts in the field of intangible heritage from 16 countries. Experts shared experiences on the implementation of national measures for the preservation of intangible cultural heritage, they have found ways to promote regional and international cooperation and offer a platform for exchange of information on the census of intangible heritage in the region.
In 2011 Ministry co-organized Seventh Ministerial Conference of Southeast Europe of cultural heritage on the theme Cultural heritage - Bridge towards a Shared Future, with participation of 12 national delegations, within the one-year presidency of Serbia in Council of Ministers of Culture in South East Europe. Conference was organized with the support of
102 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
UNESCO, and besides representative of Serbian Ministry of Culture it was attended by representatives of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, while an observer status had Greece, Slovenia and Turkey. Representatives of the ministries responsible for culture adopted the Belgrade Declaration, which gives guidance on the promotion of international cooperation in South East Europe and promotion of the cultural heritage as a tool for sustainable development, dialogue and reconciliation. It was agreed that it is necessary to improve preventive, reactive and awareness measures to combat illicit trafficking in cultural property.
In this period, Ministry singed Protocol on Cooperation between the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Culture of Serbia. As a result, Days of Serbian culture in Russia were organized. It included concerts in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, series of exhibitions, film shows and other activities through which the Russian public had the opportunity to learn about Serbian culture and arts.
One of the most important international cultural cooperation examples from this period was contract that was signed by the Ministry for the establishment of the Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade. For the realization of the project Support to the Establishment of the Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade, the Italian Cooperation for Development has provided a donation of 974,462 euros. Laboratory of the Central Institute for Conservation was equipped with the latest equipment, and for 81 participants were organized professional trainings in the field of conservation and restoration.
During 2011-2012, Serbia took over the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of Culture of South East Europe, held in Bucharest when Republic of Serbia took over the chairmanship of this body.
In 2011 Serbia was a country in the focus of the Leipzig Book Fair, one of the most important events of its kind in Europe. Works of 40 authors were supported by the ministry, their works translated in German and presented to readers and professionals. At Biennial of Contemporary Art in Venice in 2011, Serbia was presented by work of painter Raša Todosijević. Serbian Pavilion at the Biennale of Contemporary Art in Venice was named the best and the artist by the Ministry selected to represent our country at the Biennale was awarded. In addition, Ministry supported previous year's exhibition at the Venice Biennale that was exposed in front of the prestigious Tate Gallery in London, UK.
103 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
One of the great successes in this period was exhibition consisted of copies of frescoes from the National Museum and Gallery of Frescoes in Belgrade which was exhibited in Florence and later at the Basilica of St. Apostles in Rome. The exhibition Serbia, the country frescos, sponsored by the Ministry of Culture, represents a continuation of the promotion of Serbian culture and heritage abroad, and is designed with the intention to show, with the help of a specific artistic expression, the presence of artistic and spiritual trends of the medieval era in the territory of Serbia.
When it comes to regional cooperation, definitely the most important event in this period was joint nomination of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to UNESCO. These countries sent a first transnational nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List. Former Yugoslav counties proposed medieval stone tombstone features to be included on UNESCO list.
***
In following chapter of this part of research, read additional comments on this short period, activities of the Ministry, obstacles for creation one sustainable and effective strategy for cultural diplomacy provided by Mr. Predrag Marković, former Minister of Culture.
104 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.6.1. Go back to the beginning and start again – Interview118 with Mr. Predrag Marković119, former Minister of Culture
Having in mind that your mandate was short, how would you describe circumstances that you have found in the Ministry, were they suitable for your work in the field of cultural diplomacy?
My job was infinitely simplified, because in this short period of time of my mandate it was easy to work with all the employees who actually performed all tasks related to cultural diplomacy. I am referring to colleagues from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Culture and so on. It is important to say that in this period, Serbia assumed the presidency of the Council of Ministers of Culture of South East Europe and we had one more important mechanism available for action in this regard.
Other important institution that participated in this work is the Presidency of Serbia, because Serbia at that time hosted a conference attended by all heads of state from the region. I worked with a very creative and capable team at the Ministry of Culture, which has already been formed, and that has been able to collaborate with international partners and with actors from Serbia, at the state and local level. We had a few lucky circumstances that helped promotion our culture abroad – Celebrating Anniversary when Ivo Andrić received the Nobel Prize and selection of Serbia to members of the Committee of UNESCO. All this has resulted in situation that Serbia was in focus of the world, while we on the other hand, we have many things to offer and in that combination of circumstances achieve excellent, I would say, historic results.
This will sound strange, but I think that the economic crisis has helped us to promote our culture. In that sense, number of foreign statesmen cited Serbia as a successful example of country in the economic crisis, because we managed to achieve results in spite of a small budget for culture. All achieved results are part of the good cooperation and creativity of the people who were involved in international cultural activities, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Culture, through all involved institutions. In this period we have created some important preconditions for further work in this area, and as it seemed to me, left a good basis to our heirs.
118 Interview conducted on July 22, 2013 in Belgrade 119 More about Mr. Marković: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predrag_Markovi%C4%87, accessed on 22-07-2013 105 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
What would you single out as the most important result?
I think that perhaps, in the context of cultural diplomacy, the most important was connection of Serbian to other countries involved in the Danube strategy, because we are now in a position to quickly and easily promote our culture in many places at the same time under this strategy. In addition, we achieved readiness of Serbia to demonstrate capacity for regional cooperation, which is reflected in the establishment of the Central Institute for Conservation, which was opened in 2011. We have proven that we’re able to train regional specialists and experts, which is also tool for promotion of our culture. One particularly important event was first joint nomination of the countries in the region, led by Serbia for listing tombstones (medieval tombstones present on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia) on the UNESCO list.
Was cultural diplomacy a priority in the work of the Ministry during your term?
A lot of things important for the work of Ministry were not systematically set up, so it is difficult to evaluate the achievements of something that actually does not exist. Serbia in recent years rapidly involved itself in international cultural trends, with extraordinary results. There is an awareness of certain number of people of the importance of cultural diplomacy, but there is no institutional basis for its effective operation. First of all I think we lack the enduring relationship between culture and tourism, where the cultural products would be in the function of promoting the state.
Have activities of cultural diplomacy depended on your personal initiative?
Personal touch is always present, but that doesn’t represent proof of quality. I already knew quite well to manage systems of the Ministry due to extensive experience that I have in the civil service, so it was easy to connect and coordinate things. There are no strategies of cultural policy and cultural diplomacy that would be comparable. This is the biggest problem. These strategies do exist, but they are incompatible, which is unsustainable. That is why personal initiative takes precedence over institutional actions that would not be dependent on the personality of the minister.
Many of the activities that I inherited from the previous minister are results of his work and the team around him. I generally continued work I inherited, but there were activities that I initiated. The key issue is that we have willingness, openness and the capacity of institutions to take the personal initiative and turn them into a form that is usable. 106 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Which tools of cultural diplomacy proved to be most effective?
I think that manifestation Days of Serbian Culture which was held in a number of countries gave the most effective results. This form of presentation of our culture in Russia, Germany, France and other countries gave great and good results. Also, cultural centers established and funded by the state in other countries are great tool to achieve results in cultural diplomacy. Cooperation through UNESCO is also important and provides many opportunities especially as it includes a number of national institutions in addition to the Ministry.
Perhaps the greatest single achievement in the field of cultural diplomacy was exhibition of frescoes Serbia, land of Frescoes with the support of the Ministry of National Museum. Exhibition traveled all over Europe, and now is permanently installed in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence, Italy. That was great success for the Serbian culture.
In what extent the state is initiator of these events, the exhibition you mentioned was result of personal initiative of the curator, support from the state came after the exhibition was set up.
God forbid that the state is initiator of these activities. The state should provide a framework of action for these initiatives that should be supported in every possible way. Whenever the government decides to be the initiator of something an error occurs.
The state should provide the framework and rules, and to support talented artists in their creative work. The role of the state is also to deal with conservation of cultural heritage through the work of the institutions.
How important is it to formulate a clear strategy of cultural diplomacy?
Each kind of strategy in cultural diplomacy should be based on clearly defined system that you want to protect and clear system of values that you want to present. If state hasn’t established a system of values, like Serbia hasn’t, whatever strategy you propose that enables mechanisms for cultural diplomacy they cannot produce the effect.
What are the obstacles in establishing such system of values?
Serbia is a country in transition, with problems regarding its territory; we have problems with the composition of the population, type of industry. These are all major obstacles in establishing one clear and sustainable system of values. Only recently political factors in
107 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Serbia became aware of the importance of the EU integration and importance of establishing a new system of values on state level that should be protected and promoted.
To what extent do general political conditions affect the activities of cultural diplomacy?
Political stability is a prerequisite for establishing a sustainable model of cultural diplomacy. We still have a problem with that, for culture is very important to have stability that would allow continued development. Also, the structure of government and ministries should be permanent. For example, in one moment we had the Ministry of Tourism, now we don’t have it. In such circumstances, it is not possible to create a network among the institutions that would be continuous and operational in a long run. Another problem is the staff and the continuity of a number of experts who would be dismissed from the institution when political change occurs.
Finally, what is most important prerequisite for establishing an effective model of cultural diplomacy in Serbia?
Firstly, Serbia has to identify the position on our own heritage, as T.S. Eliot said the tradition we want to create. After that, to define identity based on which we should look for models that would be useful in our context. It is very important to find experiences that fit into our context. When we make a priority list that cannot be changed despite political changes in government, then we can talk about the models. It is of utmost importance to create these conditions, and then talk about the models. I'm afraid that in this area, as in many others, we have to go back and start from the very beginning.●
108 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
5.6.2. Conclusion
The last period of this research covers one year long mandate of reconstructed Government which Prime Minister was Mirko Cvetković. Political changes in formation of the Government meant changes in Ministry of Culture as well. New Minister was appointed, Mr. Predrag Marković. His testimony for this research discovered that he was just continuing the work of the previous Minister, Mr. Bradić, without much self-initiative. In situation where new elections were announced, it was presumable that Mr. Marković wouldn’t keep position of the Minister for long time. This resulted in maintaining previously agreed plans and activities, so the Ministry in this period didn’t make any significant efforts in improvement of cultural diplomacy of Serbia or international cultural cooperation.
However, several events marked this period and created opportunities for cultural diplomacy: Serbia assumed the presidency of the Council of Ministers of Culture of South East Europe and this period marked the 50th anniversary of Ivo Andrić’s receiving the Nobel Prize. However, these opportunities to promote Serbian culture weren’t seen as such in the full extent. Instead, celebrations of these were ceremonial and more focused on domestic audience.
Clear indication of poor state of cultural diplomacy activities in this period is statement by former Minister Marković: “A lot of things important for the work of Ministry were not systematically set up, cultural diplomacy is one of them, so it is difficult to evaluate the achievements of something that actually does not exist”.
The trend established in previous years lost its momentum. In terms of international cultural cooperation, this period was slow, passive, determined and marked mostly by finishing up already initiated activities, with very little initiative. Programs presented abroad were again out of focus, following well known and previously established paths of cooperation with certain countries. It seems that in this period slowing down of cultural diplomacy has been taken place. Press clipping analysis clearly proves that – there were a lot of programs presented abroad, but without any innovation: exhibitions, participation at international book fairs, Days of Serbian Culture with same or similar content and target audiences in comparison with previous years, etc. There was one particular event that stand out as good example of successful cultural diplomacy activity which Mr. Marković also underlined as very important – exhibition of frescoes Serbia, land of Frescoes which traveled all over
109 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Europe, and now is permanently installed in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence, Italy. Also, some regional initiatives initiated by the Ministry, however, should be mentioned as perspective in terms of cultural diplomacy: during this period, first joint nomination of the countries in the region for listing tombstones on the UNESCO list was submitted.
These positive examples, however, proved to be insufficient for grading cultural diplomacy efforts in this period as successful. Again, cultural diplomacy was conducted without clear plan, set of goals or proposed instruments. Ad hoc approach to questions of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation was again introduced, undermining the successes and good initial steps from previous period. ■
110 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
VI Conclusion and final considerations
We approached the topic of cultural diplomacy in Serbia after the democratic changes with several hypotheses that are presented and argued throughout this research. Previous chapter of thesis may be appointed as analytically-descriptive overview of strategies and practices of the Ministry of Culture in the field of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation.
In this final chapter of research we have considered as necessary to distil the relevant and objective conclusions which approve or disapprove the main and supporting hypotheses of the research which we stated at the beginning of this work. Before proceeding to the conclusions that we reached during the research process, we think it is useful to make a brief overview of the main characteristics of periods that were subject of this research.
Despite the lack of official documents which would provide clear evidence, using other sources that were mentioned earlier in this study, we are able to point out some trends of policies of Ministry of Culture in the field of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation. We believe that these trends should be mentioned here as well.
The period 2001-2004 could be named as period of reaffirmation and restoration of Serbia's international cultural policies. In this period, it is possible to detect a very proactive stance across the Government and the Ministry in the establishment and renewal of damaged ties with the international cultural community as an effort in overcoming the legacy of the nineties. As far as cultural diplomacy is concerned, activity that would include active and continuous action in this regard was practically non-existent since the Ministry mainly engaged in its own reconstruction and the establishment of a functioning system for everyday activities.
The period 2004-2007 was marked by consequences of the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić – political and ideological shifts and changes that occurred in the Government as a result. The consequences of this event are valid even today and according to most of our interviewees, this event had crucial influence on slowing down of all positive processes and policies in the country. In the field of cultural diplomacy and cultural policy in general, during this period there was a reaffirmation of the national narrative in cultural activities. Cultural diplomacy in this period was not in the focus of the Ministry, which has undergone an ideological and political change. The declaration of independence of
111 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Montenegro has also caused turbulence in the sphere of political so cultural policy and cultural diplomacy ranked very low on the list of priorities of the Ministry of Culture.
The period 2007-2008 was marked by return of personnel in the Ministry of Culture that could be characterized as people closed to Đinđić’s Democratic Party and ideas of modernization and Europeanization of Serbia. Those who minister Brajović gathered around him tried in this short term to direct cultural policy towards reforms and European integration, modernization activities and establishment of sustainable models in culture. However, the declaration of independence of Kosovo, which occurred in 2008 and caused severe political crisis, caused this work to remain unfinished. In sphere of international cultural cooperation, important appointments of experts in Ministry of Culture have taken place. It can be said that involvement of these people caused creation of good foundations for formulation of cultural diplomacy strategy that occurred in following period.
The period 2008-2011 is the first period after democratic changes in 2000 in which we can detect systematic and deliberate action of the Ministry of Culture in the field of cultural diplomacy. Ministry had declared priorities and started with the implementation of clearly defined plans. In this sense, we can say that this period is the first one since 2000 in which a clear plan for cultural activities abroad existed. However, the plan wasn’t part of officially adopted strategy or joint action between other parts of the state system and the Government itself, but an attempt of the Ministry to establish the principles in this area and the basis for further action.
In period 2011-2012, in which the Minister of Culture was Mr. Predrag Marković, was the last period that was subject of this research. Based on reports and interview with Mr. Marković, we can say that this period was slow, passive, determined and marked mostly by finishing up already initiated activities, with little initiative. However, here is possible to detect shifts in, if nothing else, establishing awareness inside the Ministry of the importance and possibilities that cultural diplomacy offers.
112 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
6.1. Main conclusions
Despite previously described obstacles that we encountered during this research that are related to customs of institutions to provide access to official documents that would serve as a relevant source on one hand, and the discovery that these documents are largely not archived or stored in public institutions, on the other hand, it is possible to draw conclusions that point to a concrete identified problems, their theoretical elaboration and consideration in an interdisciplinary context. At this point we recall both hypotheses and objectives that we set at the beginning of this study and references to theory concepts which helped us the most to understand notion of cultural diplomacy and its possible role in foreign cultural policy.
1. Cultural diplomacy of Ministry of Culture in Serbia is mainly underdeveloped and unsystematic. It seems that the very notion of cultural diplomacy is mostly superficially understood by the officials who make most of decisions and plans in this regard. It can clearly be noticed that cultural diplomacy in Serbia is understood in a traditional sense. It is seen more as promotion of Serbian art and heritage aboard and effort to improve the image of the country internationally. We recall the notions of Gijs de Vries regarding cultural diplomacy to confront these widespread opinions on cultural diplomacy in Serbia (de Vries, 2009): “Cultural diplomacy is about the intellectual life of a nation in the widest sense: its scientific research as well as its art, its social and political life as well as its literature. Crucially, cultural diplomacy is about the values that are at a country’s understanding of itself, and about the ways in which these values manifest themselves in daily life. Cultural diplomacy therefore has a reflective, self-critical component. In reaching out to others, it dares to reflect on a country’s shortcomings as well as its ambitions and achievements.“120
Approach of Serbian Ministry of Culture regarding cultural diplomacy doesn’t seem to involve any kind of self-reflection or promotion of social or political values, whatsoever. It can be said that main points in approach of Serbian Ministry of Culture include only promotion of cultural heritage, arts and literature. These main points are promoted by various forms of programs sent abroad which is the topic of our second conclusion.
2. Based on the analysis of programs which are often used as instruments in cultural diplomacy and international cultural relations, it is possible to derive some general conclusions concerning the content and policies of creation of these programs. Firstly,
120 Speech at British Council’s Celebration of 75 years of Cultural relations, The Role of Cultural Diplomacy in European Foreign Policy, 2009 113 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
content of Serbian cultural activities abroad are numerous programs which are mainly products of elite culture; they are in much lesser extent products of popular culture. We cannot talk about the predominant narratives, but the lack of an articulated narrative. There is a marked division of Serbian cultural matrix between European and traditional identity. It can be said that Ministry of Culture nurtures insufficient, particular and reactive approach to cultural activities as part of the international dimensions of cultural policies. This also signifies that international cultural relations are not clear priority.
There is no evidence that Serbian Government through work of Ministry of Culture conducts these programs in manner that would fit opinion of Ruth Berenson (Berenson, 2007): “Governments pursue programs of cultural diplomacy in an attempt to spread their entire way of life as completely as possible – one that they consider more advanced or developed”.121
All programs used as tools of cultural diplomacy mentioned above are used in order to promote Serbian culture in an ad hoc manner. On contrary, Gijs de Vries explains that these efforts should be managed in complete opposite manner in order to achieve different results (de Vries, 2009): “Cultural diplomacy’s focus is not on improving a country’s popular image in the short term, but on building a positive reputation, which, by definition, requires consistency and continued dedication. (...) Cultural diplomacy is not only about soliciting admiration or sympathy through the showcasing of national cultural achievements. It is above all about building trust. Its purpose is to establish mutually beneficial cooperation and partnership. It is about establishing mutual benefit as the basis for mutual trust.“122
In order to meet de Vries’ goals of cultural diplomacy it is necessary to come up with clear strategy that would be continuously executed. The problem of continuity in work of Ministry of Culture in Serbia has been mentioned and explained several times so far. In next conclusion, we’re coming back to it with recalling the main hypothesis of this research.
3. Based on the analysis of available documents and the fact that the Ministry of Culture in the observed period did not adopt any particular strategy or even draft of regulation concerning cultural diplomacy, we can say that activities of cultural diplomacy were passive, and when they were proactive, the initiative was largely isolated and sporadic. This led us to conclusion that directly confirms the main hypothesis of this paper: Cultural diplomacy and
121 Berenson, R., Grossberg J., Lying abroad: A critical study of cultural diplomacy, Arts Management Program, University at Buffalo, Merrill Press, 2007 122 Ibid. 114 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
international cultural cooperation of Ministry of Culture of Republic of Serbia are in large part routinely conducted, without a clear model, strategy, a set of instruments and measures. In the period that is under research, activities conducted by the Ministry in terms of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation are sporadic and reactionary, without self - initiative and clear framework.
4. In conversations with the former Serbian Ministers of Culture and their close associates in charge for international cultural cooperation we discovered that personal preferences and the authority of ministers largely directed activities in the field of international cultural cooperation. That actually means that cultural diplomacy strategies (if any) are dependent on personal knowledge, motivation and interest of the Minister and his associates. It seems that Government doesn’t have to do anything with decisions regarding cultural diplomacy which are left to Ministers and other officials. This confirms our first supporting hypothesis: Activities, measures and instruments of cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation in large part depend on personalities and initiatives of current Minister of Culture, while international cultural policy depends on leadership of Ministers and their personal motivation and devotion.
5. Interdepartmental cooperation between the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not exist in terms of clearly defined policies and procedures in which this cooperation could achieve desired results. Personal contacts of Ministers and staff in both ministries are actually the only procedure by which the cooperation between the two ministries is carried out. There is no link between cultural and foreign policy, they are kept separate and inconsistent. For these reasons, the foreign policy of Serbia does not recognize the cultural diplomacy as one of the available instruments in the implementation of foreign- policy agenda of the Government. The connection between foreign policy and cultural diplomacy and their mutual influence is studied by numerous authors, we recall thinking of Walter R. Roberts on subject (Roberts, 2006): “After the Second World War, when it became acceptable, in peacetime, for one government to try to influence the people of another country and to do this from an embassy, the nature of diplomacy had fundamentally changed. The programs that were used for this government-to-people relationship were originally called information and cultural programs. But within a relatively short time, the professionals of
115 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
information and cultural activities realized that these programs were an integral part of diplomacy and hence began to call them cultural diplomacy”.123
From changed nature of diplomacy and foreign policy that is thoroughly described in many works that we used during this research, it is clear that cultural diplomacy should be considered as part of foreign policy agendas. The soft power of the government is widely accepted as much relevant as military or economic power. Unfortunately, Serbian Ministry of Culture (Serbian Government as well) doesn’t seem to share that view which is, in our opinion, expressed in the best way in works of Joseph Nye, who noted (Nye, 2004): “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries – admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness – want to follow it. In this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract others in world politics, and not only to force them to change by threatening military force or economic sanctions. This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them.“124
We can conclude that cultural diplomacy in Serbia is seen primarily as part of work of Ministry of Culture, as a separate part of policy not related to official foreign policy. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (at least according to the information we obtained during this study) did not show interest in closer cooperation with the Ministry of Culture.
On the other hand, in the period covered by this research, there was no official proposal from the Ministry of Culture for a more specific and systematic cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This suggests that one of the supporting hypothesis of this research was correct: There is no clearly set mechanism for interdepartmental cooperation between Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Foreign Affairs in defining and conducting international cultural policy; these two Ministries do not conduct synchronized activities and policies (cultural and foreign policy) in terms of measures and instruments in cultural diplomacy / international cultural cooperation.
6. According to analysis of available reports and findings from contact with officials from the Ministry of Culture and the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia – proposition of
123 Roberts, R. W., The Evolution of Diplomacy, 2006, available at: http://ics- www.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=7&paper=2712, accessed on 11- 09-2013 124 Nye, J., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs, 2004, pp. 2-5 116 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 strategy for cultural diplomacy hasn’t been proposed by the Ministry of Culture to the Government or Parliament. Only a few strategies are discussed in the Ministry itself, in non- official manner, although by detected activities it can be interpreted that there was some kind of plan in this sense, especially in period 2008-2012. However, arbitrariness in these activities is proved to be a common denominator of all the formations of the Ministry of Culture since 2000 to date.
Channels of communication between the Ministry of Culture and the Parliament are used routinely. According to testimony of employee of Parliament even the annual reports of the Ministry were not submitted to the Parliament. This information maybe best described the state in which national institutions are – there is no rule or determined and defined procedures that should be followed. Even when the procedure is prescribed by the law, it is generally not fulfilled. Good example is legal obligation of the Ministry to forward annual report on its work to Parliament which afterwards also has legal obligation to archive it. Neither the Ministry sends regularly these reports, nor does the Parliament systematically archive those reports that are received. This proves our third supporting hypothesis: There is no active and systematic relationship which would provide governmental bodies to direct cultural policy; cultural diplomacy is rare or never on agenda of the Ministry of Culture which does not make any framework in order to conduct cultural diplomacy / international cultural cooperation.
7. Theoretical concepts of cultural diplomacy in the work of the Ministry of Culture remain unrecognized and unapplied. This study showed that the general political conditions have a major impact on the work of the Ministry. Each of the ministers interviewed testified that the general political circumstances were obstacles to the establishment of a clear, functioning system for cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation. A number of ministers showed complete lack of understanding of the importance, and we would say the very concept of cultural diplomacy itself. The majority has shown awareness of the importance of this issue, but for other reasons it has not thoroughly dealt with it during their mandate. These reasons, in addition to the general political situation (which is a very vague term), mainly are: lack of funding for cultural activities, lack of continuity in the work of the ministry, lack of defined cultural policy, unprofessional or unexperienced staff, the global economic crisis.
8. During the research, we were unable to find speakers who have been continuously, through-out the whole research period involved in activities of cultural diplomacy in the Ministry of Culture and that could contribute giving their opinions and insights on the
117 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 policies of the Ministry in this regard. Our opinion is that this has, to some extent, affected the quality of findings related to the results of this study. Also, the inability to access all relevant documents, although not by fault of the researcher, affected the overall quality of the research findings.
9. Overall conclusion of this research could be: Ministry of Culture of Republic of Serbia shows unsystematic, particular and reactive approach to cultural activities as part of the international dimensions of its cultural policy. Its highest officials largely don’t show awareness of cultural diplomacy concepts and ways of conducting it. International cultural relations are not clear priority for Serbian Ministry of Culture, which means that they are not priority for the Government as well.
118 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
6.2. Possible topics for further research
We believe that this research marked and discovered some interesting points that could be considered as topics for further research in the field. Intention of this research wasn’t to go further in analyzing many interesting links between concepts regarding cultural diplomacy, more to tackle the general policy attitudes regarding cultural diplomacy and its present state of conduct. Possible topics for further research could be:
1) Relation of modern Serbian foreign policy agenda towards international cultural activities and cultural diplomacy; 2) Cultural diplomacy and its relation to language, diaspora, economic and political interests; 3) Influence of political and ideological changes in the Government on priorities of international cultural cooperation and types of cultural products promoted abroad; 4) Changes in promotion of parts of national identity through usage of cultural heritage internationally; 5) Possible mutual influence of cultural diplomacy and trade and tourism policies in Serbia; 6) Cultural diplomacy as tool for changing national reputation in the world; 7) Relation of cultural diplomacy towards EU integration of Serbia – can it be used as a powerful tool?; 8) Regional cultural relations – common heritage and cultural diplomacy – is it possible to come up with a mutual, regional platform for action?; 9) Third sector and official cultural diplomacy – what can be learned from independent initiatives, artistic groups and NGO’s in formulating sustainable and effective cultural diplomacy agenda.
These topics, of course, represent just part of the broader list of issues that has arisen during this research. Author of the thesis believes that there is not just academic, but practical need for these topics to be further researched and developed.
119 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
6.3. Recommendations and Final remarks
At the very end, we believe that it’s important to come up with set of recommendations so the concepts of cultural diplomacy in Serbia could have more success in the future. Ljiljana Rogač pointed out, in our opinion, the very essence for solution-making strategy for problems of formulating new and sustainable model of Serbian cultural diplomacy and international cultural cooperation (Rogač, 2010):
“A new approach in developing strategies and programs of cultural policy is necessary, which will – in addition to national recognition of cultural identity – promote the values and programs that are the expression of the cultural diversity of the whole country. In order for this approach to be possible, it is important, among other things, to leave approaches that produce short-term results. It is necessary to formulate a strategy that would focus on communication which is directed towards consensus that supports the intended action. Formulating this kind of strategy involves conscious attempt to reconstruct the domestic context and to set public debate regarding new framework. This means that we need to introduce new content, since the new narrative is also a way to introduce new voices in the debate and a way to reconcile the traditional values, emotions, ethnic and cultural myths with new, civic values.”125
Beside this, we believe that there are several preconditions that need to be fulfilled before we can assume that any kind of official strategy would be successful:
1) Willingness of the Government and the Ministry in attempts to create new national system of values which would be publicly debated and accepted by the ruling bodies of the Government, expert and general public; making a decision on which tradition we would like to produce and promote, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot;
2) Setting clearly developed and defined list of priorities that would include plans and strategies regarding selection of cultural production, its promotion abroad in a continuous and timely manner, with clear sense of target groups and countries where cultural diplomacy of Serbia should mostly take place (in contrast to previous practice where ad hoc exhibitions, Days of Serbian Culture and other similar manifestations took place in not defined and clear framework); Implementing strategy of internationalization which relates to “all forms of
125 Rogač, Lj., Kulturne aktivnosti Srbije u Evropi i svetu: 2000-2010, Časopis Kultura 130, Beograd, 2011, pp.331-349 120 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
international cooperation fostered not only by existing international contracts but also by processes of EU intergration”126:
3) Creating a strong link between foreign policy goals with cultural diplomacy activities; meaning that all foreign policy goals should be in accordance and collusion with activities of cultural diplomacy; for example – creating a link between Serbian main foreign policy goals – becoming a member of the EU with cultural diplomacy activities;
4) Creation of specialist national institution that would be responsible for cultural diplomacy activities. In this sense it is useful to recall experiences with formerly existent Institute for International Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation (active during the 70’s and 80’s in former Yugoslavia) that would be central governmental body for cultural diplomacy activities. This, however, doesn’t exclude formation of other bodies inside the Governmental system, other Ministries (Culture, Foreign Affairs, Tourism, Diaspora, etc) or on local level, on the contrary;
5) It is necessary that all layers of Government are involved in activities of cultural diplomacy in order to use it effectively; in that sense, it would be necessary to introduce new bodies inside of Ministries of Government that would be responsible for international cultural activities or cooperation with bodies of other Ministries which are taking the lead in conducting these activities;
6) Paying more attention on domestic cultural production, communication with artists and cultural workers, scholars and experts, fostering their involvement in formulating strategies, plans and programs for cultural diplomacy; create long-lasting partnerships with national and independent artistic and cultural initiatives, groups, institutions and individuals in order to be familiar with possible cultural offer; implement strategy of linkage, as seen by Vesna Đukić (Đukić, 2010): “This strategy also includes partnership between public and private sector in culture; without this connection it is impossible to round up socio-cultural cycles” 127
7) Better and more think-through usage of Serbian diplomatic missions in the world; usage of the possible resources, connections and possibilities that could be provided by diplomatic missions of Serbia abroad; introducing position of cultural attachés who would have close
126 Đukić, V., Država i kultura, Institut za pozorište, film, radio i televiziju FDU, Beograd, 2010, p. 264 127 Ibid, p. 247 121 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
cooperation with the Ministry of Culture, Government and other bodies in charge for cultural diplomacy;
8) Introducing continuity in cultural diplomacy activities by promoting and introducing specialist sectors that would be responsible for suggesting action plans and strategies to responsible branches of Government and deal with coordination of cultural diplomacy activities; for example, looking up to the Hungarian or Slovenian experience – these two countries introduced special sector for international representation of their cultures in the countries of the European union in order to affect their membership status;
9) Formulating new target groups of cultural diplomacy; in large part, previous activities of cultural diplomacy have been targeting domestic audience abroad (diaspora); it would be necessary to put other target groups in focus as well (intellectual and artistic elites, administration, government officials, technocrats, etc.);
10) Securing the preconditions for closer cooperation between all branches of Government, for example Ministry of Tourism and Ministry of Culture in promoting cultural products in joint appearances internationally; increasing funds for culture, international cultural cooperation and cultural diplomacy, setting separate budgets that would be appointed to the activities of cultural diplomacy.
We are aware that recommendations set above are in large part insufficient or even not realistic having in mind current situation regarding attitude of the Government towards cultural diplomacy issues. However, we believe that it is important to come up with some, even idealistic, proposition or plan, and try to fulfill it instead of practically doing nothing or executing activities without any strategy or at least without a sustainable and effective one.
Theory teaches us that cultural diplomacy is one of the most cost-effective means of political influence available to foreign, cultural and national security policy. However, due to neglect and misunderstanding, this powerful tool of statecraft in Serbia has been underutilized. This research aimed to show the present state of cultural diplomacy in Serbia in retrospective period that starts in the year of democratic changes in 2000. Risking to sound as cliché or even banal – We believe that so far results are not sufficient or even effective, that attitudes regarding cultural diplomacy aren’t promising, but that there is a lot of room for improvement.
122 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
We decided to end this work by quoting John Lenczowski (Lenczowski, 2009) who was researching cultural diplomacy in the US, but nevertheless, we believe that following quotation is perfectly applicable and appropriate to the Serbian experience that we tried to analyze and present in this master thesis:
„Given how difficult it is for existing leaders to acquire intellectual capital while in office, it seems quixotic to hope that they will undergo the necessary conceptual revolution, become enthusiasts and advocates for a necessary structural and bureaucratic revolution within the government, and then go about implementing such change with strategic and tactical determination. The realistic conclusion to be drawn from this is that the fruits of this extraordinary instrument of national influence [cultural diplomacy] will have to be picked up by a new generation. But time flies and a new generation is in formation. “128 ■
128 Lenczowski, J., Cultural Diplomacy, Political Influence, and Integrated Strategy, in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, ed. Waller, M, Institute of World Politics Press, 2009, p. 97 123 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
VII Bibliography
Books
Arndt, Richard, The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century, Potomac Books, 2005
Bátora, Jozef; Mokre, Monika, Culture and External Relations, Europe and Beyond, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011
Berenson, Ruth (ed.), Lying abroad: A critical study of cultural diplomacy, Arts Management Program, University at Buffalo, Merrill Press, 2007
Biserko, Sonja, Kovanje antijugoslovenske zavere, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, 2006
Bogetić, Dragan, Saradnja Jugoslavije sa zapadnim silama u vreme normalizacije njenih odnosa sa socijalističkim lagerom 1956. godine, Istorija XX veka, 2005
Cull, Nicholas, Public Diplomacy Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase, USC Center on Cultural Diplomacy, 2006
Cummings, Milton, Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: a Survey, Center for Arts and Culture, 2003
Dimić, Ljubodrag; Stojanović, Dubravka; Jovanović, Milan, Srbija 1804-2004, Biblioteka Serbica, Beograd, 2005
Dragićević-Šešić, Milena; Stojković, Branimir, Kultura, menadžment, animacija, marketing, Clio, Beograd, 2011
Dragićević-Šešić, Milena; Dragojević, Sanjin, Menadžment umetnosti u turbulentnim okolnostima, Clio, Beograd, 2005
Đorđević, Mirko, Signs of the Times, Janus Library, In press, Belgrade, 1998
Đukić-Dojčinović, Vesna, Tranzicione kulturne politike – konfuzije i dileme, Zadužbina Andrejević, Beograd, 2003
124 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Đukić, V., Država i kultura, Institut za pozorište, film, radio i televiziju FDU, 2010
Fox, Robert, Cultural Diplomacy at the Crossroads. Cultural Relations in Europe and the Wider World, The British Council, 1999
Giddens, Anthony, Europe in the Global Age, Polity Press Cambridge, 2007
Golubović, Zagorka, Pouke i dileme minulog veka, Filip Višnjić, Beograd, 2006
Kang, Hyungseok, Reframing Cultural Diplomacy: International Cultural Politics of Soft Power and the Creative Economy, King’s College London, 2013
Milenković, Nebojša, Kratak pregled nasilja nad duhom: Zvezda i njena senka, MSLU, Novi Sad, 2006
Mitchell, J. M., International Cultural Relations, Allen and Urwin, 1986
Moisi, Dominique, The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, humiliation, and Hope are Reshaping the World, Routledge, New York, 2010
Nicolson, Harold, Diplomacy, London, Oxford University Press, 1963
Nye, Joseph, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Public Affairs, 2004
Nye, Joseph, Power in the Global Information Age, Routledge, New York, 2004
Perović, Latinka, Snaga lične odgovornosti, Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava, Beograd, 2008
Popov, Nebojša (ed.), Srpska strana rata, Koreni trauma, Republika, Beograd, 1996
Popović-Obradović, Olga, Kosovo - cilj ili sredstvo srpske nacionalne politike, Peščanik, 2005
Simon, Mark, A Comparative Study of the Cultural Diplomacy of Canada, New Zealand and India, University of Auckland, 2008
Snow, Nancy; Taylor, M., Philip (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, New York, Routledge, 2009
Stojanović, Dubravka, Ulje na vodi, Peščanik, Beograd, 2010
125 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Sundhaussen, Holm, Istorija Srbije od 19. do 21. veka, Clio, Belgrade, 2007
Vučetić, Radina, Koka-kola socijalizam, Službeni glasnik, Beograd, 2012
Waller, Michael (ed.), Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, Institute of World Politics Press, 2009
Waller, Michael, Cultural Diplomacy, Political Influence, and Integrated Strategy, in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, Washington, DC, 2009
Wysyomirski, Margaret, International cultural relations: A Multi-country comparison, Centre for Arts and Culture, 2003
Articles and academic texts
Anheiner, Helmut, Foundations and Cultural Diplomacy, Panel paper submitted at conference „Culture, politics and cultural politics“, Barcelona, Spain, 2012
Bonniel, Jacques, Les Enjeux des echanges culturels internationaux in Daković, Nevena, Nikolić Mirjana (ed.) Obrazovanje, umetnost i mediji u procesu evropskih integracija, FDU, Beograd, 2008
De Vries, Gijs, The Role of Cultural Diplomacy in European Foreign Policy, 2009
Dragićević-Šešić, M., Between the rock and a hard place: cultural policies of and towards Serbia, Ashgate publisher, London, 2010
Dragićević-Šešić, Milena, Media war and Hatred, Kultura n. 93-94, Belgrade, 1994
Feigenbaum, Harvey, Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy, Arts, Culture & the National Agenda Issue Paper, Centre for Arts and Culture, 2001
Glenny, Misha, Background: Balkans, The Guardian, September 2003
Isar, Yudhishthir Raj, Cultural Diplomacy: An Overplayed Hand?, Cultural Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy Magazine, Winter 2010, USC Centre for Public Diplomacy
126 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Laqueur, Walter, Save Public Diplomacy, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1994
Lenczowski, John, Cultural Diplomacy, Political Influence, and Integrated Strategy, in Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, 2009
Leonard, Mark, Diplomacy by Other Means, Foreign Policy 132, 2002
Maack, Mary Nails, Books and Libraries as Instruments of Cultural Diplomacy in Francophone Africa during the Cold War, Libraries & Culture 36, no. 1, 2001
Perović, Latinka, (Zlo)upotrebe Španskog građanskog rata i Drugog svetskog rata na prostoru Jugoslavije, Speech at International forum on historical revisionism, Belgrade, 2013
Roberts, Walter, The Evolution of Diplomacy, Mediterranean Quarterly, 2006
Rogač, Ljiljana, Kulturne aktivnosti Srbije u Evropi i svetu: 2000-2010, Časopis Kultura 130, Beograd, 2011
Van Ham, Peter, Place Branding: The State of the Art, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616, 2008
Webography
BalkanKult – Balkan Cultural Co-Operation http://www.balkankult.org/bk/ (accessed on Sep 22, 2013)
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Protection www.poverenik.rs (accessed on Sep 09, 2013)
Compendium – Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/index.php (accessed on Sep 27, 2013)
Cultural Contact Point Serbia www.ccp-serbia.org (accessed on Sep 27, 2013)
European Integration Office of Goverment of Serbia www.seio.gov.rs (accessed on Sep 27, 2013)
127 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Fund For Humanitarian Law, Belgrade www.hlc-rdc.org (accessed on Aug 19, 2013)
Insitute for Cultural Diplomacy http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en (accessed on Sep 28, 2013)
International Commission on Missing Persons www.ic-mp.org (accessed on Aug 19, 2013)
International Committee of the Red Cross www.icrc.org (accessed on Aug 19, 2013)
Official website of Ministry of Culture http://www.kultura.gov.rs/en/ (accessed on Sep 28, 2013)
Official website of Serbian Government http://www.srbija.gov.rs/?change_lang=en (accessed on Sep 28, 2013)
Peščanik www.pescanik.net (accessed on Sep 27, 2013)
SENSE News Agency http://www.sense-agency.com (accessed on Sep 02, 2013)
The Guardian www.theguardian.com (accessed on Sep 27, 2013)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization https://en.unesco.org/ (accessed on Sep 28, 2013)
Wikipedia www.wikipedia.org (accessed on Sep 27, 2013)
Zoran Đinđić Virtual Museum www.zorandjindjic.org (accessed on Sep 09, 2013)
128 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
ANNEX I – Official answer from the Ministry of Culture to request for documents
129 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
130 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
ANNEX II – List of interviewees and contacts
1. Mr. Branislav Lečić, former Minister of Culture (in office: 2001-2004)
2. Mr. Dragan Kojadinović, former Minister of Culture (in office: 2004-2007)
3. Mr. Vojislav Brajović, former Minister of Culture (in office: 2007-2008)
4. Mr. Branislav Dimitrijević, former Deputy of Minister of Culture for International cultural cooperation (in office: 2007-2009)
5. Mr. Zoran Hamović, former special advisor of former Minister of Culture Mr. Nebojša Bradić (in office: 2008-2011)
6. Mr. Dimitrije Vujadinović, director of Balkankult Foundation
7. Ms. Irina Subotić, professor emeritus at University of Arts in Belgrade
8. Ms. Danijela Filipović, former assistant of Mr. Predrag Marković
9. Ms. Neda Knežević, director, Museum of Yugoslav History
10. Ms. Mila Đorđević, secretary of Board for culture and information in Parilament of Serbia
131 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
ANNEX III – Press Clipping
PRESS CLIPPING 2004-2013
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF MINISTRY OF CULTURE, REPUBLIC OF SERBIA (SOURCE: WEBSITE OF GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC OF SERBIA)
2004. http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Počeo 38. Bitef ?id=8008 16. septembar 2004. godine Ministarstvo kulture pokrovitelj http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Dana evropske baštine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=2761 13. jul 2004. godine ?id=11760 Slovenački umetnici u Beogradu Završen festival poezije 22. april 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Smederevska jesen" ?id=8224 24. septembar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Počinje 11. međunarodni filmski ?id=2843 festival na Paliću http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Predstavljena radionica 16. jul 2004. godine ?id=11782 "Menadžment u kulturi" Naša zemlja ponovo na 23. april 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Frankfurtskom sajmu knjiga ?id=8475 24. septembar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Likovna kolonija u Velikoj Hoči od ?id=3457 27. jula do 10. avgusta http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Susret Kusturice i Madžidija u 21. jul 2004. godine ?id=12056 Ministarstvu kulture Manifestacija "Radost Evrope" od 5. maj 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 1. do 6. oktobra u Beogradu ?id=8621 29. septembar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Mađarski film "Kontrola" pobednik ?id=3459 Palićkog filmskog festivala http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Uručen "Zlatni pečat" iranskom 23. jul 2004. godine ?id=12266 filmskom reditelju Počeli "Dositejevi dani" u Čakovu 5. maj 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 1. oktobar 2004. godin ?id=8724 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Završen 11. međunarodni filmski http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=3614 festival na Paliću ?id=12168 Regionalna konferencija o zaštiti 24. jul 2004. godine Promocija reklamne kampanje za spomenika na Kosovu i Metohiji izložbu Stedelijka 10. maj 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 30. septembar 2004. godine ?id=8913 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Održan seminar iz oblasti zaštite http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=4338 kulturnog nasleđa balkanskih ?id=12574 Filmska industrija Srbije uskoro zemalja Na 36. Bemusu održan maraton članica evropskih asocijacija 28. jul 2004. godine kamerne muzike 19. maj 2004. godine 8. oktobar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=8929 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=6253 Integracija zemalja Jugoistočne ?id=12633 "Horovi među freskama" od 15. Evrope kroz jačanje uloge kulturnog Izlagači iz Srbije posle decenije juna do 11. jula u Beogradu nasleđa pauze ponovo na Sajmu knjiga u 11. jun 2004. godine 28. jul 2004. godine Frankfurtu 7. oktobar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=7092 ?id=10640 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srbija i Crna Gora 32. članica SCG će 17. novembra biti primljena ?id=12788 Evropske kinematografske u EURIMAGES Predstavljena publikacija "Voda - asocijacije 3. septembar 2004. godine smisao trajanja" 28. jun 2004. godine 12. oktobar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=10972 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=7713 Centralna proslava “Dana evropske ?id=12869 Večeras se otvara CIOFF "Festival baštine” u Kikindi Predstavljen katalog zbirke mira" u Beogradu 9. septembar 2004. godine "Italijansko slikarstvo od 14. do 18. 9. jul 2004. godine veka" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 13. oktobar 2004. godine ?id=11368
132 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Ministri kulture Srbije i Crne Gore ?id=13187 na skupu u Beču http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoren 49. Beogradski sajam 27. novembar 2004. godine ?id=21311 knjiga "EUROIMAGES" pruža finansijsku 19. oktobar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php podršku za dva naša filma ?id=16270 3. mart 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php SCG postala 31. članica "Eurimaža" ?id=13715 2. decembar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Zatvoren 49. Beogradski sajam ?id=21514 knjiga http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Grčki glumci proglasili 33. FEST 26. oktobar 2004. godine ?id=16406 završenim Ministarstvo kulture priredilo 7. mart 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php prijem povodom uspeha predstave ?id=13830 "Idiot" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php SCG krajem novembra postaje 32. 3. decembar 2004. godine ?id=22706 zemlja članica "Eurimaža" Međunarodno takmičenje muzičke 28. oktobar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php omladine od 18. do 31. marta ?id=16878 14. mart 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Ministri kulture Srbije i Crne Gore ?id=15042 učestvovali na konferenciji u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Izložba "Flipsajd" od danas u Vroclavu ?id=22792 Njujorku 13. decembar 2004. godine SCG učestvuje na Salonu knjiga u 12. novembar 2004. godine Parizu od 17. do 25. marta http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 15. mart 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=17286 ?id=15204 Održana zvanična inauguracija http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvorena konferencija o primeni Instituta "Servantes" u Beogradu ?id=22867 digitalne tehnologije u ustanovama 20. decembar 2004. godine "Noć frankofonije" u Centru kulture "Sava" 15. novembar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 16. mart 2005. godine ?id=17310 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Nastavljen povraćaj kulturnih http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=15220 dobara Hrvatskoj ?id=23177 Intenzivirana kulturna saradnja 21. decembar 2004. godine Održana "Noć frankofonije" u Srbije i Rusije Centru Sava 16. novembar 2004. godine 19. mart 2005. godine 2005. http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=15348 ?id=24007 Sutra počinje Festival autorskog http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Uspešan nastup SCG na Salonu filma ?id=18572 knjiga u Parizu 18. novembar 2004. godine Kojadinović u Parizu potpisao 30. mart 2005. godine Protokol o saradnji sa Kulturnim http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php centrom SCG http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=15437 17. januar 2005. godine ?id=24108 Otvorena izložba "Rađanje moderne Film "Diši duboko" tokom aprila - od barbizonske škole do http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php učesnik pet festivala u SAD-u konstruktivizma" ?id=18837 1. april 2005. godine 19. novembar 2004. godine Festival francuskog filma od 30. januara do 2. februara http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 21. januar 2005. godine ?id=26113 ?id=15488 Međunarodni festival recitovanja, Franjevačkom samostanu u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php poezije i retorike od 25. do 27. aprila Vukovaru vraćene stare i retke ?id=18860 u Beogradu knjige Najavljeno konstituisanje Saveta 21. april 2005. godine 20. novembar 2004. godine ministara kulture Balkana 21. januar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=27311 ?id=15750 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Belgrejd vajb festival" 29. maja na Počinje "Festić 2004" ?id=19623 Kalemegdanu 24. novembar 2004. godine Kojadinović održao govor na 10. maj 2005. godine Svetosavskoj akademiji u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Budimpešti http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=15886 31. januar 2005. godine ?id=27343 Ministar kulture u poseti Bratislavi Film "Diši duboko" dobio nagradu 26. novembar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php u Hjustonu ?id=19986 10. maj 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kojadinović otvorio skup posvećen ?id=15975 umetnosti kod Iranaca http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Intenzivirati kulturnu saradnju 5. februar 2005. godine ?id=27459 Srbije i Slovačke Nastavak dobre saradnje sa Italijom 26. novembar 2004. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php u oblasti kulture ?id=21039 11. maj 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Katrin Denev otvorila 33. FEST ?id=15989 26. februar 2005. godine
133 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvorena 41. likovna kolonija u ?id=28131 ?id=30796 Sićevu (sa međunarodnim učešćem) Kojadinović na konferenciji Festival evropskog filma na Paliću 2. septembar 2005. godine "Kulturni koridori jugoistočne od 17. do 23. jula Evrope" 23. jun 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 20. maj 2005. godine ?id=34659 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoreni Dani kulture SCG u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=30826 Nemačkoj ?id=28174 Intenziviranje kulturne saradnje 2. septembar 2005. godine Deklaracija o kulturnim koridorima između Srbije i Ukrajine odlična platforma za dalji rad na 23. jun 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php zaštiti kulturne baštine ?id=34984 21. maj 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Obeležavanje "Dana evropske ?id=30920 baštine" u 26 gradova Srbije http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Neophodno oživljavanje medijske 8. septembar 2005. godine ?id=28281 saradnje Srbije i Ukrajine Otvoren 12. Međunarodni festival 24. jun 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php pozorišta za decu ?id=35089 23. maj 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kojadinović otvorio "Dane evropske ?id=31155 baštine" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Predstavljena kampanja za borbu 10. septembar 2005. godine ?id=28622 protiv piraterije (uz međunarodnu Neophodna reforma službe zaštite podršku) http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulturne baštine (međunarodna 29. jun 2005. godine ?id=36014 konferencija) Izložba italo-kritskih ikona 25. maj 2005. godine Narodnog muzeja od 26. septembra http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php u Rotenburgu ?id=31177 23. septembar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Eurimaž" odobrio sredstva za ?id=29093 pomoć distribuciji evropskih filmova http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Naša zemlja predstavljena na u SCG ?id=36296 Drugom solunskom sajmu knjiga 29. jun 2005. godine Donacija od 1,5 miliona evra za 1. jun 2005. godine obnovu Nebojšine kule http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 27. septembar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=31695 ?id=29254 EURIMAGES odobrio sredstva za http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Festival srpskog filma u Parizu snimanje filma "Ljubavni sabor u ?id=36321 3. jun 2005. godine Guči" Otvoren Festival nitratnog filma 6. jul 2005. godine 28. septembar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=29502 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Potpisan Sporazum o kulturno- ?id=32072 ?id=36552 prosvetnoj saradnji Srbije i Kojadinović razgovarao sa Završena međunarodna smotra Republike Srpske delegacijom Ministarstva kulture "Mermer i zvuci" 7. jun 2005. godine NR Kine 30. septembar 2005. godine 13. jul 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=29656 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=36812 Zajednička podrška ministarstava ?id=32908 Otvorene 37. beogradske muzičke kulture Srbije i RS strateškim "Zlatni toranj" na Paliću za svečanosti projektima rumunski film 4. oktobar 2005. godine 8. jun 2005. godine 23. jul 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=36828 ?id=29766 ?id=33885 Predstavljanje laponske kulture u Otvoren Prvi festival srpskog filma u Završena Međunarodna kolonija Srbiji od 6. oktobra do kraja godine Francuskoj keramike 4. oktobar 2005. godine 9. jun 2005. godine 18. avgust 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=36857 ?id=29858 ?id=33981 Kojadinović razgovarao sa Jiržijem Svetski sastanak ministara kulture u Večeras počinje likovna kolonija Menclom Madridu "Sokolica 2005" (sa međunarodnim 4. oktobar 2005. godine 10. jun 2005. godine učešćem) 23. avgust 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=36987 ?id=30185 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Dušan Jevtović dobitnik Velike Obeležavanje Svetskog dana muzike ?id=34515 nagrade jagodinskog bijenala 15. jun 2005. godine Završen Beogradski letnji festival 5. oktobar 2005. godine BELEF 05 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 1. septembar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=30599 ?id=37164 Dani kulture Islanda u Srbiji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kojadinović otvorio 12. Bijenale 21. jun 2005. godine ?id=34602 naivne umetnosti u Jagodini 7. oktobar 2005. godin
134 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Izložba "Srpske kolekcije" Ruskog http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php etnografskog muzeja iz Sankt ?id=49077 ?id=37361 Peterburga Kojadinović na prvom sastanku "Dani kulture Srbije" od 1. do 30. 30. novembar 2005. godine ministara kulture Jugoistočne Evrope novembra u Temišvaru 14. april 2006. godine 10. oktobar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=41294 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Nastavak razgovora Kojadinovića i ?id=49601 ?id=37507 Haračije u Velikom Trnovu Koncert ruskog vojnog hora Prvi dečji filmski festival od 18. do 7. decembar 2005. godine "Aleksandrov" sutra uveče u Centru 23. oktobra u Beogradu "Sava" 13. oktobar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 26. april 2006. godine ?id=41494 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Finansijska podrška "Evroimaža" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=37717 za još dva srpska filma ?id=49615 Novi imidž SCG na Sajmu knjiga u 9. decembar 2005. godine Festival "Egzit" biće održan od 6. do Frankfurtu 9. jula u Novom Sadu 17. oktobar 2005. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 26. april 2006. godine ?id=41700 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoren 7. međunarodni festival http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=38199 studentskog filma ?id=50116 Beogradski sajam knjiga od 25. do 14. decembar 2005. godine "Eurimaž" će podržati dva filmska 31. oktobra projekta iz SCG 24. oktobar 2005. godine 10. maj 2006. godine 2006. http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=38292 ?id=50262 Velika Britanija počasni gost 50. http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kojadinović i Perne posetili Arhiv Sajma knjiga ?id=44702 kinoteke 25. oktobar 2005. godine Uspešna saradnja Srbije i Francuske 11. maj 2006. godine na polju kulture http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 27. januar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=38300 ?id=50414 Otvoren 50. Međunarodni sajam http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Počeli Dani srpskog filma u Minsku knjiga ?id=44906 15. maj 2006. godine 26. oktobar 2005. godine Intenziviranje kulturne saradnje Rusije i Srbije http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 30. januar 2006. godine ?id=50550 ?id=38428 Delegacija Ministarstva kulture u Potpisan Protokol o saradnji Grčke i http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php poseti Kini Srbije u izdavaštvu ?id=45409 16. maj 2006. godine 27. oktobar 2005. godine Nastavak podrške domaćim izdavačima na sajmovima knjiga http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 7. februar 2006. godine ?id=50604 ?id=38886 Završeni "Dani srpskog filma u Otvoreni Dani kulture Srbije u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Minsku" Temišvaru ?id=45901 17. maj 2006. godine 1. novembar 2005. godine Izložba "U dodiru s antikom" Muzeja Luvr od sutra u Beogradu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 16. februar 2006. godine ?id=50736 ?id=39189 Najavljeno učešće domaćih izdavača Ciklus srpskog filma u Institutu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php na sajmu knjiga u Solunu savremenih umetnosti u Londonu ?id=46366 19. maj 2006. godine 4. novembar 2005. godine Otvoren 34. FEST 25. februar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=50954 ?id=39835 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Obeleženi Dani slovenske pismenosti Andrea Bočeli održao koncert u ?id=46680 i kulture Beogradu Počinje poslovni program FEST-a 26. maj 2006. godine 16. novembar 2005. godine pod nazivom "B2B" 3. mart 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=51249 ?id=40745 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kojadinović u poseti Republici Počinju "Dani kulture Belorusije u ?id=47526 Srpskoj Srbiji" Prezentacija srpske kinematografije 30. maj 2006. godine 28. novembar 2005. godine na 59. filmskom festivalu u Kanu 21. mart 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=51235 ?id=40880 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kojadinović na konferenciji Nastavak razgovora Kojadinovića i ?id=48100 posvećenoj koridorima kulture u Haračija Završen Regionalni sastanak o Opatiji 30. novembar 2005. godine prevenciji ilegalnog prometa 30. maj 2006. godine kulturnih dobara http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 29. mart 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=40882 ?id=51331
135 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Uspostavljena neposredna kulturna http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php saradnja kulturnih institucija Srbije ?id=54516 ?id=57668 i RS Prvi međunarodni studentski filmski Ojačati bilateralnu saradnju Srbije i 31. maj 2006. godine kamp "Interakcija - Zlatibor 2006" Francuske u oblasti kulture 1. avgust 2006. godine 17. oktobar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=52023 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Nagrada "Aleksandar Lifka" ?id=54777 ?id=57697 festivala "Palić 2006" Bati "Dani evropske baštine" u 27 mesta Održan koncert AKUD "Lola" u Živojinoviću u Srbiji Parizu 15. jun 2006. godine 31. avgust 2006. godine 18. oktobar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=52199 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=57741 Otvoren Drugi festival srpskog filma ?id=55079 Obnavljanje saradnje filmskih u Parizu Počinju "Dani evropske baštine" institucija Francuske i Srbije 17. jun 2006. godine 7. septembar 2006. godine 18. oktobar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=52349 ?id=55438 ?id=57761 Predstavnici Ministarstva za “Dane evropske baštine” u Emiru Kusturici Orden Viteza dijasporu prisustvuju Danima Beogradu do sada posetilo 15.000 umetnosti i književnosti Francuske srpske kulture u Parizu ljudi 18. oktobar 2006. godine 21. jun 2006. godine 12. septembar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=57869 ?id=52399 ?id=55609 Najavljena poseta delegacije Održan skup o značaju kulturne Večeras počinje 40. BITEF “Luvra” Beogradu diplomatije 15. septembar 2006. godine 19. oktobar 2006. godine 22. jun 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=55708 ?id=58112 ?id=52411 Otvoren jubilarni 40. BITEF Predstavljanje projekta "100 Drugi sastanak Saveta ministara 16. septembar 2006. godine slovenskih romana" na Sajmu kulture Jugoistočne Evrope u Varni knjiga 22. jun 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 23. oktobar 2006. godine ?id=55828 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Predstavljen dodatak lista "Borba" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=52536 na francuskom jeziku ?id=58175 Neophodna sinhronizovana akcija 18. septembar 2006. godine Prva regionalna konferencija o zemalja Jugoistočne Evrope u cilju integrativnoj zaštiti važna za očuvanja kulturne baštine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php zbližavanje u regionu 23. jun 2006. godine ?id=56258 24. oktobar 2006. godine Film Olega Novkovića "Sutra http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ujutru" kandidat za Oskara http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=52676 26. septembar 2006. godine ?id=58187 Kojadinović u poseti Briselu Otvoren 51. Beogradski 28. jun 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php međunarodni sajam knjiga ?id=56460 24. oktobar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Razmatrane mogućnosti osnivanja ?id=52697 Centralnog instituta za konzervaciju http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Plesni ansambl iz Koreje večeras Srbije ?id=58289 gostuje u Madlenijanumu 28. septembar 2006. godine Beogradski sajam knjiga praznik za Beograd, 28. jun 2006. godine Srbiju http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 25. oktobar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=56973 ?id=53126 Održan prijem u čast prvog http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kultura otvara put ka integraciji u samostalnog nastupa Srbije na ?id=58393 EU Bijenalu arhitekture u Veneciji Podrška Srbiji za uključivanje u 6. jul 2006. godine 6. oktobar 2006. godine projekte kulture Evropske unije 27. oktobar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=53325 ?id=57024 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoren Beogradski letnji festival Veliko interesovanje posetilaca ?id=58437 BELEF 06 Sajma knjiga u Frankfurtu za štand Jan Figel u pratnji delegacije Vlade 11. jul 2006. godine Srbije Srbije posetio Kovačicu 6. oktobar 2006. godine 27. oktobar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=53825 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Zlatni toranj" festivala na Paliću ?id=57616 ?id=58448 slovenačkom filmu "Od groba do Status posmatrača u Frankofoniji Ekspertska pomoć Srbiji za groba" veliki podsticaj za Srbiju pristupanje projektu ''Culture 21. jul 2006. godine 16. oktobar 2006. godine 2007'' 27. oktobar 2006. godine
136 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=58821 ?id=65173 ?id=71083 Unapređenje kulturne saradnje Otvoren srpski štand na Sajmu Počeo 14. filmski festival na Paliću Srbije i Italije knjiga u Lajpcigu 17. jul 2007. godine 2. novembar 2006. godine 22. mart 2007. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=71488 ?id=65771 Svečano otvoren BELEF 07 (sa http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Usavršavanje predstavnika srpskih međunarodnim učešćem) ?id=58836 muzeja u "Luvru" i "Dorseju" 24. jul 2007. godine Kojadinović izrazio zahvalnost 5. april 2007. godine ruskom patrijarhu na pomoći Srbiji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 3. novembar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=72125 ?id=67388 Brajović otvorio Slovačke narodne http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Noć muzeja" u Srbiji kao deo svečanosti ?id=58913 "Evropske noći muzeja" 4. avgust 2007. godine Kojadinović prisustvovao prijemu u 19. maj 2007. godine Kremlju http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 4. novembar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=73158 ?id=67858 Centralna proslava manifestacije http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Prioritet Ministarstva kulture "Dani evropske baštine 2007" od 20. ?id=59304 regionalna saradnja do 23. septembra u Beogradu Dani mađarske kulture u Srbiji 29. maj 2007. godine 3. septembar 2007. godine 9. novembar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=69356 ?id=73564 ?id=59410 U Parizu otvoren Treći festival Brajović na skupu ministara kulture Kojadinović učestvovao na skupu o srpskog filma Jugoistočne Evrope zaštiti kulturnog nasleđa u 21. jun 2007. godine 10. septembar 2007. godine Normandiji 13. novembar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=69764 ?id=73638 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Prilagođavanje zakonodavstva iz "Mokranjčevi dani" od 14. do 19. ?id=59515 oblasti kulture evropskim septembra (sa međunarodnim Delegacija Srbije učestvovala na standardima učešćem) skupu posvećenom zaštiti kulturne 27. jun 2007. godine 11. septembar 2007. godine baštine 14. novembar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=69821 ?id=73944 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Za Narodno pozorište u Beogradu Svečano otvoren 41. BITEF ?id=59675 310.000 evra od Vlade Japana 17. septembar 2007. godine Vajar Mrđan Bajić predstavnik 28. jun 2007. godine Srbije na likovnom Bijenalu u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Veneciji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=74373 17. novembar 2006. godine ?id=70028 Počela centralna proslava "Dana Otvaranje Prvog filmskog festivala evropske baštine" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srbije sutra u Novom Sadu (sa 21. septembar 2007. godine ?id=60501 međunarodnim učešćem) Ministarstvo kulture nije zabranilo 2. jul 2007. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php projekciju filma "Letnja palata" ?id=74434 1. decembar 2006. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Potpisane tri konvencije o zaštiti ?id=70190 kulturnog nasleđa Film "Sveti Georgije ubiva aždahu" 21. septembar 2007. godine 2007. dobio podršku "Eurimaža" od 380.000 evra http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 4. jul 2007. godine ?id=74315 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Dani evropske verske kulturne ?id=62871 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php baštine" od 22. do 30. septembra u Donacija Vlade Japana ?id=70258 Beogradu Jugoslovenskoj kinoteci "Rimska noć" u Viminacijumu u 20. septembar 2007. godine 18. januar 2007. godine službi kulturnog turizma 5. jul 2007. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=74761 ?id=64386 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Finansijska pomoć države za "Eurimaž" dodelio 220.000 evra ?id=70433 programe na jezicima manjina zajedničkom filmskom projektu Završen Prvi filmski festival Srbije 27. septembar 2007. godine Srbije i Hrvatske 9. jul 2007. godine 1. mart 2007. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=75626 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=70924 Najavljena konferencija ?id=65144 Počinje 14. festival evropskog filma "Obrazovanje, umetnost i mediji u Treći sastanak Saveta ministara na Paliću (sa međunarodnim učešćem) procesu evropskih integracija" kulture Jugoistočne Evrope u Sofiji 14. jul 2007. godine 9. oktobar 2007. godine 22. mart 2007. godine
137 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Počela retrospektiva filmova Gorana Potpisan protokol o sufinansiranju ?id=75876 Paskaljevića u Njujorku stalnih manifestacija u oblasti Donacija Vlade Japana Srpskom 10. januar 2008. godine kulture (manifestacije međunarodnog narodnom pozorištu u Novom Sadu karaktera) 12. oktobar 2007. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 26. mart 2008. godine ?id=81798 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Ministar kulture razgovarao sa http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=76558 ambasadorom Republike Srbije u ?id=85682 Otvoren 52. međunarodni sajam Beču Draganom Velikićem Potpisan Sporazum o saradnji Srbije knjiga 23. januar 2008. godine i Crne Gore u oblasti kulture 22. oktobar 2007. godine Cetinje, 28. mart 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=82368 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=76642 Realizacija projekta digitalizacije ?id=86091 Otvoren štand Italije na Sajmu arhivske građe Kinoteke od 15. Jugoslovenskoj kinoteci uručena knjiga februara (međunarodno učešće) donacija Vlade Japana 23. oktobar 2007. godine 31. januar 2008. godine 4. april 2008. godine
http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=76912 ?id=82640 ?id=86102 Srbija nastoji da dosledno i aktivno Potpisivanje memoranduma o Ministarstvo kulture sufinansijer primenjuje principe Uneska učešću Srbije u programu EU kulturnih manifestacija na Paliću i 26. oktobar 2007. godine "Kultura 2007–2013" sutra u Subotici (sa međunarodnim učešćem) Briselu 4. april 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 5. februar 2008. godine ?id=78464 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Paskaljević odlikovan Ordenom http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=87084 Viteza reda umetnosti i književnosti ?id=82730 Otvorena “Tačka kulturnog Francuske Brajović potpisao memorandum o kontakta” 20. novembar 2007. godine pristupu srpske kulture programu 19. april 2008. godine EU http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 7. februar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=78751 ?id=88459 Mogućnosti saradnje Srbije i Kine u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Završeni radovi na obnovi oblasti medija i izdavaštva ?id=82807 kompleksa logora u mađarskom 26. novembar 2007. godine Ministarstvo kulture osuđuje gradu Šarvaru incident prilikom otvaranja izložbe 15. maj 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Odstupanja" ?id=80155 8. februar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Prvi međunarodni "Kustendorf film ?id=89009 festival" 14. januara na Mokroj gori http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvorene nove prostorije 14. decembar 2007. godine ?id=82941 Austrijskog kulturnog foruma u Brajović razgovarao sa Beogradu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php predsednikom "Fonda jedinstva 29. maj 2008. godine ?id=80283 pravoslavnih naroda" Otvoren međunarodni naučni skup o 12. februar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php srpskom jeziku u SANU ?id=89215 17. decembar 2007. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Uspešan nastup Srbije na Sajmu ?id=83555 knjiga u Solunu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Konkurs za predstavnika Srbije na 3. jun 2008. godine ?id=80324 Bijenalu u Veneciji od 25. februara Medijsko zakonodavstvo Srbije do 31. marta http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php prilagoditi evropskoj praksi 22. februar 2008. godine ?id=89845 18. decembar 2007. godine Srbiju na 11. Bijenalu arhitekture u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Veneciji predstavlja projekat http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=83641 "Vonlih" ?id=80496 Otvoren 36. međunarodni filmski 19. jun 2008. godine Završena Studija izvodljivosti za festival FEST osnivanje Centralnog instituta za 23. februar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php konzervaciju u Beogradu ?id=90053 20. decembar 2007. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srpska književna produkcija biće ?id=84441 registrovana u svetu prema jeziku Srbija na sajmovima knjiga u 26. jun 2008. godine 2008. Lajpcigu i Parizu 10. mart 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=90928 ?id=80986 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić razgovarao sa ambasadorima Retrospektiva filmova Gorana ?id=84798 Japana i Bugarske Paskaljevića od 9. do 31. januara u Kultura glavni faktor povezivanja 16. jul 2008. godine Njujorku na Balkanu 3. januar 2008. godine 15. mart 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=91742 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=81102 ?id=85480
138 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Bradić i Ognjenović razgovarali o Otvoren dvodnevni forum „Duša Bradić otvorio Međunarodni učešću Srbije na Sajmu knjiga u Evrope“ pozorišni festival "Kvartet" Frankfurtu 3. oktobar 2008. godine 31. oktobar 2008. godine 31. jul 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=95274 ?id=97402 ?id=91909 Otvoren seminar "Susreti Marlo" Manifestacije u znak sećanja na Predstavljanje Srbije na Bijenalu 6. oktobar 2008. godine francuske vojnike stradale u arhitekture u Veneciji 13. septembra borbama za oslobođenje Srbije 5. avgust 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 3. novembar 2008. godine ?id=95376 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php U Beogradu otvorena Međunarodna http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=92082 konferencija o kulturi jednakosti ?id=97509 Unapređenje kulturne saradnje 8. oktobar 2008. godine Donacija Grčke za rekonstrukciju Srbije sa Kinom i Nemačkom spomenika Kula Nebojša na 7. avgust 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Kalemegdanu ?id=95522 4. novembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Ofanzivni nastup Srbije na Sajmu ?id=92088 knjiga u Frankfurtu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Donacija Rusije za obnovu 9. oktobar 2008. godine ?id=97610 spomenika kulture na Kosovu i Kuba veoma zainteresovana za Metohiji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php intenziviranje kulturnih odnosa sa 8. avgust 2008. godine ?id=96110 Srbijom Novi medijski zakoni usklađeni sa 5. novembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php zakonodavstvom EU ?id=92629 17. oktobar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić i Janjić posetili izdavačku ?id=98179 kuću bugarske nacionalne manjine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Nagrada od 500.000 dinara za 22. avgust 2008. godine ?id=96218 najbolju predstavu na 13. U zaštiti kulturnog nasleđa prioritet Jugoslovenskom pozorišnom http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php srpski spomenici upisani u Listu festivalu (sa međunarodnim učešćem) ?id=92792 svetske baštine 14. novembar 2008. godine Potreba za jačanjem kulturne 20. oktobar 2008. godine saradnje Srbije i Poljske http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Beograd, 28. avgust 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=98324 ?id=96216 Završen 13. Jugoslovenski pozorišni http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Počinje 53. Međunarodni sajam festival u Užicu (sa međunarodnim ?id=92947 knjiga u Beogradu učešćem) Bradić otvorio Međunarodni skup 20. oktobar 2008. godine 18. novembar 2008. godine slavista na Filološkom fakultetu Beograd, 2. septembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=96293 ?id=98406 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoren 53. Međunarodni sajam Sastanak Mešovite srpsko-hrvatske ?id=93024 knjiga u Beogradu komisije za povraćaj kulturnih Izdavači iz Srbije na Sajmu knjiga u 21. oktobar 2008. godine dobara Moskvi 19. novembar 2008. godine 3. septembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=96480 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Nagrada za promociju srpske ?id=98598 ?id=93466 književnosti uručena izdavaču iz Održan sastanak Mešovite srpsko- Centralna proslava manifestacije Francuske hrvatske komisije za povraćaj "Dani evropske baštine" u Baču 23. oktobar 2008. godine kulturnih dobara 10. septembar 2008. godine 20. novembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=96661 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=93796 Nominacija Srbije za počasnog gosta ?id=99025 Večeras otvaranje 42. BITEF-a Sajma knjiga u Lajpcigu Bradić učestvuje na konferenciji o 15. septembar 2008. godine 24. oktobar 2008. godine interkulturalnom dijalogu u Bakuu 27. novembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=93952 ?id=96894 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Delegacija Srbije na konferenciji o Utvrđeni prioriteti saradnje ?id=99047 kulturnom nasleđu Jugoistočne ministarstava kulture Srbije i Predstavnici Ministarstva kulture na Evrope Hrvatske regionalnom seminaru u Istanbulu 17. septembar 2008. godine 28. oktobar 2008. godine 27. novembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=94574 ?id=97105 ?id=99229 Bradić i Konuzin razgovarali o Ministarstvo kulture uputilo poziv Unapređen tekst Nacrta zakona o kulturnoj saradnji za podnošenje projekata u kojima se nacionalnim savetima 25. septembar 2008. godine odvija interkulturni dijalog 1. decembar 2008. godine 30. oktobar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=95163 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=99239 ?id=97153
139 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Nacionalni štand Srbije prvi put na 19. januar 2009. godine sajmu knjiga u Sofiji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 1. decembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=105516 ?id=102078 Srbija uspešno predstavljena na http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Vlada donela odluku o formiranju Salonu knjiga u Parizu ?id=99585 Centralnog instituta za konzervaciju 16. mart 2009. godine Ministri kulture u Bakuu potpisali (CIK) Deklaraciju o važnosti uloge kulture 22. januar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php i nasleđa u interkulturnom dijalogu ?id=106273 5. decembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Izbor Đavolje varoši za jedno od ?id=102477 sedam svetskih čuda značajan za http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Državni sekretar Ministarstva promociju Srbije ?id=99614 kulture na otvaranju kuće Majke 25. mart 2009. godine Bradić u poseti Italiji, Sloveniji i Tereze Hrvatskoj 29. januar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 5. decembar 2008. godine ?id=106840 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Dani srpske kulture u Ukrajini http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=102551 1. april 2009. godine ?id=99685 "Nedelja kulture Srbije" u Marseju Otvorena regionalna konferencija od 2. do 7. februara http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php posvećena portalima za kulturu 30. januar 2009. godine ?id=106870 8. decembar 2008. godine Bradić na sastanku Saveta ministara http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulture Jugoistočne Evrope u Atini http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=102816 2. april 2009. godine ?id=99707 Međunarodna konferencija o zaštiti Na konkursu za afirmaciju kulturnog nasleđa u Nišu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php interkulturnog dijaloga odabrano 15 4. februar 2009. godine ?id=107016 projekata Budućnost kulturne saradnje je u 8. decembar 2008. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php formatu multilateralne saradnje ?id=103618 3. april 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić u poseti Turskoj ?id=99834 17. februar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Unapređenje kulturne saradnje ?id=107270 Srbije i Italije http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić otvara Dane srpske kulture u 9. decembar 2008. godine ?id=103927 Ukrajini Potpisan Protokol o kulturnoj 7. april 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php saradnji Srbije i Turske ?id=99998 19. februar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić završio posetu Italiji, ?id=107199 Sloveniji i Hrvatskoj http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Prijepolje domaćin “Dana evropske 10. decembar 2008. godine ?id=104004 baštine” Otvoren 37. Fest 7. april 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 21. februar 2009. godine ?id=100460 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Drugi međunarodni filmski festival http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=107322 “Kustendorf” od 8. do 14. januara ?id=104098 Bradić otvorio Dane srpske kulture 17. decembar 2008. godine Nove aktivnosti u okviru bilateralne u Ukrajini saradnje na planu kulture 8. april 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 23. februar 2009. godine ?id=100900 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Prvi sastanak odbora za ?id=108458 organizaciju konferencije "Novi http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php U Briselu održan treći "Balkan muzejski prostori" ?id=104813 Traffic Festival" 24. decembar 2008. godine Dani ruske kulture u Srbiji i srpske 28. april 2009. godine kulture u Rusiji 5. mart 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 2009. ?id=108460 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Održan sastanak o sufinansiranju ?id=104882 medija na jezicima manjina http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić prisustvuje otvaranju Sajma 28. april 2009. godine ?id=101465 knjiga u Lajpcigu Bradić otvorio drugi "Kustendorf" 6. mart 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 9. januar 2009. godine ?id=108687 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Filmu Borisa Mitića Gran Pri na http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=105300 festivalu u Mađarskoj ?id=101865 Bradić i Nojman razgovarali o 4. maj 2009. godine Potpisan Program srpsko-indijske kulturnoj saradnji Srbije i Nemačke kulturne saradnje u naredne tri 11. mart 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php godine ?id=109950 19. januar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić otvorio konferenciju o ?id=105502 kulturnom nasleđu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Poseta Nemačkoj veoma značajna za 22. maj 2009. godine ?id=101893 buduću kulturnu saradnju dveju Međunarodna saradnja prioritet zemalja http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Ministarstva kulture ove godine 16. mart 2009. godine ?id=110110
140 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Srbija na Sajmu knjiga u Solunu od Film "Tamo i ovde" nagrađen na Bradić u poseti Makedoniji 28. do 30. maja međunarodnom festivalu u Japanu 20. avgust 2009. godine 26. maj 2009. godine 20. jul 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=115043 ?id=110200 ?id=113714 Unapređenje kulturne saradnje sa Ministarstvo kulture učestvuje na Ministarstvo kulture podržava Makedonijom i Češkom Konferenciji SE o medijima u misiju filmskog festivala na Paliću 21. avgust 2009. godine Rejkjaviku 20. jul 2009. godine 27. maj 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=115127 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=113867 Bradić u poseti Egiptu ?id=110461 Srbija i Makedonija potpisale 24. avgust 2009. godine Saradnja u oblasti kulture između Program saradnje u kulturi Srbije i RS u usponu 22. jul 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 2. jun 2009. godine ?id=115188 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Slike Milene Pavlović-Barili videlo http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=113854 više od 90.000 ljudi ?id=110892 Pokrenut veb sajt o Mileni Pavlović 25. avgust 2009. godine Konferencija "Mediji u dijaspori, Barili mediji za dijasporu" 24. juna 22. jul 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 10. jun 2009. godine ?id=115190 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić razgovarao sa ministrom http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=114082 kulture Egipta ?id=111113 Bradić i Varikio posetili izložbu 25. avgust 2009. godine Počela transformacija Senjskog Milene Pavlović-Barili rudnika u regionalni centar 24. jul 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulturnog nasleđa ?id=115246 13. jun 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Predviđeno potpisivanje programa ?id=114257 kulturne saradnje Srbije i Egipta http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Finansiranje prevođenja 52 26. avgust 2009. godine ?id=111833 reprezentativna dela srpske Bradić primio delegaciju Kineskog književnosti u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php radija internacional 28. jul 2009. godine ?id=115316 25. jun 2009. godine Bradić i Kamel razgovarali o http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php saradnji beogradske i kairske opere http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=114742 27. avgust 2009. godine ?id=112800 Otvoren Međunarodni pozorišni Široke mogućnosti za proširenje festivala "Tvrđava teatar" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php saradnje Srbije i Palestine u oblasti 12. avgust 2009. godine ?id=115895 ekonomije, obrazovanja i kulture Bradić u zvaničnoj poseti Mađarskoj 8. jul 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 8. septembar 2009. godine ?id=114776 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić otvorio 4. Međunarodni http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=112927 studentski filmski kamp ?id=116009 Počinje deseti “Egzit” festival "Interakcija 2009" Bradić razgovarao sa ministrom 9. jul 2009. godine 13. avgust 2009. godine kulture i obrazovanja Mađarske 9. septembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=113134 ?id=114844 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Završen deseti muzički festival Završena izrada sajta posvećenog ?id=116202 "Egzit" Mileni Pavlović Barili “Dani evropske baštine” u 13. jul 2009. godine 17. avgust 2009. godine Prijepolju 12. septembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=113362 ?id=114869 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Obeležavanje 100-godišnjice rođenja Otvaranje izložbe "Tvrđave i ostaci ?id=116098 Milene Pavlović Barili utvrđenih gradova Srbije" Važnost čuvanja i promocije 14. jul 2009. godine 18. avgust 2009. godine zajedničkog kulturnog nasleđa 11. septembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=113669 ?id=114992 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Potpisan Protokol o saradnji Srbije i Bradić otvorio izložbu fotografija ?id=116246 pokrajine Baden-Virtemberg "Tvrđave i ostaci utvrđenih gradova Momirov primila delegaciju Kine 17. jul 2009. godine Srbije" 14. septembar 2009. godine 20. avgust 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=113572 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=116457 Cvetković u Trstu otvorio izložbu ?id=115007 Potpisan Sporazum o kulturnoj "Ljudi Svetog Spiridona – Srbi u Predstavljanje dela Milene Pavlović- saradnji Srbije i Slovenije Trstu od 1751. do 1914." Barili i u Rimu 16. septembar 2009. godine 17. jul 2009. godine 20. avgust 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=116488 ?id=113764 ?id=115009
141 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Dani kineske kulture u Srbiji u 6. novembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php oktobru ?id=124758 17. septembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoren Treći međunarodni filmski ?id=120528 i muzički festival "Kustendorf" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Delegacija Srbije učestvuje na 14. januar 2010. godine ?id=116586 ministarskoj konferenciji u Sloveniji Bradić i Đijan razgovarali o jačanju 10. novembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulturne saradnje Srbije i Kine ?id=124900 18. septembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Formiran Organizacioni odbor za ?id=120781 nastup Srbije na Sajmu knjiga u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić i Stoidis obilaze radove na Lajpcigu ?id=116800 rekonstrukciji Nebojšine kule 15. januar 2010. godine Bradić otvorio Evropsku letnju 13. novembar 2009. godine filmsku školu na FDU 22 septembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=121239 ?id=124898 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Veliko interesovanje za srpski film Bradić na otvaranju manifestacije ?id=117434 na filmskom festivalu u Solunu “Istanbul-Evropska prestonica Bradić izrazio saučešće ambasadoru 19. novembar 2009. godine kulture 2010. godine” Francuske 15. januar 2010. godine 30. septembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/dokume http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php nti_pregled.php?id=125692 ?id=124920 ?id=117538 Potpisivanje dokumenata između Manifestacija "Istanbul-Evropska Uspešna poseta ministra kulture Vlade Republike Srbije i Vlade prestonica kulture 2010. godine" Republici Srpskoj Države Kuvajt u oblasti kulture i značajna za Srbiju 1. oktobar 2009. godine umetnosti, turizma i civilnog 16. januar 2010. godine vazduhoplovstva http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 25. novembar 2009. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=118035 ?id=125396 Predstavljene tri knjige prevedene http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić razgovarao sa na engleski jezik ?id=121743 predstavnicima Memorijalnog 8. oktobar 2009. godine Srbija počasni gost Sajma knjiga u muzeja holokausta iz SAD Lajpcigu 2011. godine 26. januar 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 26. novembar 2009. godine ?id=118466 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Počinju Dani kineske kulture u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=125474 Srbiji ?id=121759 Počela realizacija projekta "Tvrđave 14. oktobar 2009. godine Bradić otvorio Dane srpske kulture na Dunavu“ u Temišvaru 27. januar 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 26. novembar 2009. godine ?id=119352 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Ministarstvo kulture na Sajmu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=125495 knjiga u Beogradu ?id=122750 Bradić prisustvovao obeležavanju 26. oktobar 2009. godine Usvojen Predlog okvirne konvencije 65-godišnjice oslobođenja logora SE o kulturnom nasleđu Aušvic http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 10. decembar 2009. godine 27. januar 2010. godine ?id=119421 Otvoren 54. Međunarodni sajam http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php knjiga u Beogradu ?id=123303 ?id=125738 26. oktobar 2009. godine Bradić u radnoj poseti Turskoj Nacionalni ansambl “Kolo” u 16. decembar 2009. godine Japanu i Kini http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 1. februar 2010. godine ?id=119994 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Saradnja institucija kulture zemalja ?id=123403 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Regiona Usvojena Deklaracija o ?id=125845 2. novembar 2009. godine nematerijalnoj kulturnoj baštini i Bradić u trodnevnoj radnoj poseti njenom očuvanju (u Turskoj) Briselu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 17. decembar 2009. godine 2. februar 2010. godine ?id=120081 Bradić otvorio izložbu slika Milene http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Pavlović-Barili 2010. ?id=125856 4. novembar 2009. godine Izdavači iz Nemačke i Austrije u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php poseti Srbiji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=124605 2. februar 2010. godine ?id=120218 Bradić u poseti Pečuju Delegacija Ministarstva kulture 8. januar 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php učestvuje na skupu o rehabilitaciji ?id=126094 kulturnog nasleđa Jugoistočne http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić predao muzičke instrumente Evrope ?id=124631 Muzeju instrumenata u Briselu 5. novembar 2009. godine Bradić prisustvovao otvaranju 5. februar 2010. godine manifestacije "Pečuj – evropska http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php prestonica kulture 2010" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=120350 11. januar 2010. godine ?id=126447 Bradić na festivalu u Drezdenu
142 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Održani Susreti međunarodnih umetnosti (sa međunarodnim federacija muzičara i glumaca http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php učešćem) 12. februar 2010. godine ?id=130269 9. jul 2010. godine Smotri “Mermer i zvuci” vratiti http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php izgubljeni međunarodni značaj ?id=127143 20. april 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić i Hamović u poseti Bugarskoj ?id=135895 22. februar 2010. godine Predstavljanje monografije "Svetska http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php baština – Srbija" u Londonu ?id=130447 16. jul 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić i Momirov na ministarskim ?id=127230 konferencijama na Cetinju i u Budvi http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Unapređenje saradnje ministarstava 22. april 2010. godine ?id=136051 kulture Srbije i Bugarske U Londonu predstavljena 23. februar 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php monografija o kulturnoj baštini ?id=130552 Srbije http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Potpisana deklaracija o saradnji na 20. jul 2010. godine ?id=127431 zaštiti kulturne baštine u Srbija i Slovačka potpisale Program Jugoistočnoj Evropi http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php saradnje u oblasti kulture do 2013. 23. april 2010. godine ?id=136137 godine Obezbediti kontinuirano prisustvo 26. februar 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php srpske kulture u Velikoj Britaniji ?id=130574 21. jul 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoreno 10. Međunarodno bijenale ?id=128346 minijature u Gornjem Milanovcu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srbija na Sajmu knjiga u Lajpcigu 24. april 2010. godine ?id=136351 od 18. do 21. marta Delegacija Srbije na zasedanju 15. mart 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Uneska u Braziliji ?id=131821 26. jul 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Potpisan Memorandum o saradnji ?id=128387 Ministarstava kulture Srbije i RS http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Dani srpske kulture u Kini od 18. do 15. maj 2010. godine ?id=136449 24. marta Komitet za svetsku baštinu Uneska 16. mart 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php odložio odluku o baštini na Kosmetu ?id=131927 28. jul 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Unapređenje saradnje Srbije i Kine ?id=128522 u oblasti prevođenja i izdavaštva http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić razgovarao sa ministrom 17. maj 2010. godine ?id=136694 kulture Kine Potvrđen dokument sa dopunom 18. mart 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php izjave o značaju spomenika na ?id=132940 Kosmetu (Brazilija) http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Korišćenje ekonomskog potencijala 3. avgust 2010. godine ?id=128767 tvrđava na Dunavu u cilju razvoja Sutra se završavaju Dani srpske lokalnih sredina http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulture u Kini 1. jun 2010. godine ?id=137434 23. mart 2010. godine Bradić otvara srpsku postavku na http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bijenalu arhitekture u Veneciji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=133173 24. avgust 2010. godine ?id=129157 Povezivanje sedam tvrđava na Počeo 57. beogradski festival Dunavu u jedinstvenu celinu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php dokumentarnog i kratkometražnog 4. jun 2010. godine ?id=137582 filma (sa međunarodnim učešćem) Bradić na sednici Saveta dunavskih 31. mart 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php gradova i regiona u Ulmu ?id=134083 26. avgust 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bespovratna pomoć EU medijima i ?id=129758 organizacijama civilnog društva http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Projekat grupe “Škart” na bijenalu 18. jun 2010. godine ?id=137584 arhitekture u Veneciji U septembru "Dani ruske duhovne 12. april 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulture u Srbiji" ?id=134931 26. avgust 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Značajna uloga medija u očuvanju ?id=129912 nacionalnog i kulturnog identiteta http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Potpisan Protokol o sufinansiranju dijaspore ?id=137633 festivala „Tvrđava teatar“ u 2. jul 2010. godine Bradić otvorio srpsku postavku na Smederevu (sa međunarodnim bijenalu arhitekture u Veneciji učešćem) http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 27. avgust 2010. godine 14. april 2010. godine ?id=134989 Izložba fotografija "Put kulture - http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php tvrđave na Dunavu" u Briselu ?id=137710 ?id=130140 3. jul 2010. godine Potpisan sporazum o saradnji Obeležavanje Dana svetske baštine u Ministarstva kulture i Evropske Leposaviću http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php dunavske akademije 17. april 2010. godine ?id=135378 30. avgust 2010. godine Na Kalemegdanu otvoren simpozijum posvećen pozorišnoj
143 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=137747 ?id=141519 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Dani ruske kulture u Srbiji od 14. do Hrvatskoj vraćene ikone iz ?id=144623 24. septembra pravoslavnih manastira Krupa i Srbija pozvana da bude gost 30. avgust 2010. godine Krka i crkve Svetog Dimitrija filmskog festivala u Motovunu u 27. oktobar 2010. godine Hrvatskoj http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 13. decembar 2010. godine ?id=137877 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bradić u Briselu otvorio izložbu ?id=141620 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php “Srbija, zemlja fresaka” Razmena iskustava novinskih ?id=144926 1. septembar 2010. godine agencija Jugoistočne Evrope Potpisan Program saradnje u oblasti 29. oktobar 2010. godine kulture između Srbije i Alžira http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 17. decembar 2010. godine ?id=138160 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Dani evropske baštine u Istočnoj ?id=141866 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srbiji od 8. do 23. septembra Podrška Ministarstva kulture ?id=145058 6. septembar 2010. godine Beogradskom festivalu igre U okviru Festivala „Kustendorf“ 2. novembar 2010. godine biće otvoren Konak za scenariste i http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php pisce ?id=138442 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 20. decembar 2010. godine Otvoreni 45. Mokranjčevi dani (sa ?id=142118 međunarodnim učešćem) Saradnja Srbije i Poljske u oblasti http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 10. septembar 2010. godine kulture ?id=145549 5. novembar 2010. godine Ministarstvo kulture podržalo http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php baletsku predstavu “Songs” ?id=138477 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 28. decembar 2010. godine Održana centralna manifestacija ?id=142474 Dana evropske baštine u Negotinu i Unesko će pomoći u sanaciji Zaječaru objekata kulture u Kraljevu 2011. 13. septembar 2010. godine 11. novembar 2010. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=139294 ?id=142820 ?id=146426 Bradić na Ministarskoj konferenciji Bradić na predstavljanju Projekat „Svetlost i tama simbola“ o kulturnom nasleđu u Skoplju monografije "Svetska baština – Raše Todosijevića na Bijenalu u 23. septembar 2010. godine Srbija" u Parizu Veneciji 16. novembar 2010. godine 19. januar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=139268 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Podrška nemačkog Parlamenta ?id=142898 ?id=146696 promociji srpske kulture u toj zemlji Bradić posetio Francusku kinoteku Projekat ''Svetlost i tama simbola'' 23. septembar 2010. godine 17. novembar 2010. godine važan za uspostavljanje dijaloga srpske umetnosti i sveta http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 24. januar 2011. godine ?id=139414 ?id=143047 Značaj integrisanog pristupa u Konkretni projekti saradnje Srbije i http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php tretmanu kulturnog nasleđa Francuske y oblasti kulture ?id=146927 25. septembar 2010. godine 19. novembar 2010. godine Projekcija filma „Medeni mesec“ u Evropskom parlamentu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 27. januar 2011. godine ?id=140787 ?id=143265 Kultura kao značajan faktor razvoja Briga o kulturnom nasleđu zadatak http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srbije i Republike Srpske svih država Regiona ?id=147316 16. oktobar 2010. godine 23. novembar 2010. godine Projekti Ministarstva kulture na sajmu turizma u Briselu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 3. februar 2011. godine ?id=141065 ?id=143648 Srbija počasni gost na Sajmu knjiga Donacija Ruske Federacije za http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php u Lajpcigu obnovu spomenika kulture na ?id=147675 20. oktobar 2010. godine Kosmetu Otvaranjem zgrade Jugoslovenske 29. novembar 2010. godine kinoteke 6. juna počinje Godina http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php filma ?id=141401 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 9. februar 2011. godine Otvoren 55. međunarodni sajam ?id=144334 knjiga u Beogradu Donacija SAD Etnografskom http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 25. oktobar 2010. godine muzeju od 65,2 hiljade dolara ?id=147722 8. decembar 2010. godine Srbija, BiH, Hrvatska i Crna Gora http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php zajednički nominuju stećke za ?id=141436 Uneskovu listu Nagrada "Dositej Obradović" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 10. februar 2011. godine italijanskoj izdavačkoj kući ?id=144471 "Zandonai editore" Bradić i Napolitano otvorili izložbu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 26. oktobar 2010. godine u predsedničkoj palati Kvirinale u ?id=147995 Rimu 10. decembar 2010. godine
144 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Ministri kulture Srbije, BiH i Crne 28. mart 2011. godine Gore potpisuju izjavu o podršci http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Bijenalu u Konjicu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=154618 15. februar 2011. godine ?id=150598 Unapređenje saradnje u oblasti Vekovna duhovna povezanost Srbije kulturne baštine u Jugoistočnoj http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php i Rusije Evropi ?id=148040 1. april 2011. godine 10. jun 2011. godine Podrška Bijenalu savremene umetnosti u Konjicu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 16. februar 2011. godine ?id=150702 ?id=154727 Saradnja Srbije i Jermenije u oblasti Otvorena biciklistička trka "Kroz http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulture Srbiju" (otvorio ministar kulture, ?id=148198 4. april 2011. godine informisanja i informacionog društva Ministar kulture u poseti Berlinu Predrag Marković) 18. februar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 13. jun 2011. godine ?id=151416 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srbija preuzela predsedavanje http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=148157 Savetu ministara kulture ?id=154701 Podrška očuvanju multilingvizma u Jugoistočne Evrope Dani srpske kulture u Parizu od 15. Srbiji 15. april 2011. godine do 21. juna 18. februar 2011. godine 13. jun 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=151469 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=148239 Srbija predsedava Savetu ministara ?id=155641 Predstavljen vizuelni identitet kulture Jugoistočne Evrope Ministar kulture razgovarao sa nastupa Srbije na Sajmu knjiga u 16. april 2011. godine predsednikom ENPA Lajpcigu 29. jun 2011. godine 21. februar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=151959 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Tokom maja seminari o Programu ?id=155008 ?id=148384 EU “Kultura 2007–2013” Otvoren srpski paviljon u okviru Učešće na Sajmu knjiga u Lajpcigu 27. april 2011. godine Praškog kvadrijenala važno za promociju srpske 17. jun 2011. godine književnosti i kulture http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 22. februar 2011. godine ?id=152298 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Marković otvorio seminar o ?id=156014 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php programu EU "Kultura 2007–2013" Skupština Srbije ratifikovala više ?id=148479 5. maj 2011. godine sporazuma (Srbija i BiH) Turskoj vraćena 1.864 arheološko- 5. jul 2011. godine numizmatička predmeta http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 23. februar 2011. godine ?id=190569 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Potpisani sporazumi Srbije i Laosa o ?id=155996 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php kulturnoj saradnji i vizama Izložba "Srbija, zemlja fresaka" u ?id=148499 30. maj 2013. godine bazilici Svetih apostola u Vatikanu Počinje 39. FEST 5. jul 2011. godine 24. februar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=154120 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoren srpski paviljon na 54. ?id=156071 ?id=148664 Bijenalu u Veneciji Otvorena izložba "Srbija, zemlja Bradić razgovarao sa ambasadorima 2. jun 2011. godine fresaka" u bazilici Svetih apostola u zemalja EU o kulturnoj i medijskoj Vatikanu slici Srbije http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 6. jul 2011. godine 25. februar 2011. godine ?id=154148 Paviljon Srbije na 54. Bijenalu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php nagrađen Unikreditovom ?id=156156 ?id=148674 Venecijanskom nagradom Počeo 12. "Egzit" Ralf Fajns otvorio 39. FEST 3. jun 2011. godine 8. jul 2011. godine 26. februar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=154492 ?id=156346 ?id=149136 Saradnja Srbije i Azerbejdžana u Delegacija Kine poklonila knjige Srbiju na Sajmu knjiga u Lajpcigu oblasti kulture Institutu Konfucije predstavlja 40 pisaca 8. jun 2011. godine 12. jul 2011. godine 8. mart 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=154533 ?id=156591 ?id=149543 Evropska smotra srpskog folklora Otvoren Festival evropskog filma na Otvoren nacionalni paviljon Srbije 11. i 12. juna u Beogradu Paliću na Sajmu knjiga u Lajpcigu 9. jun 2011. godine 18. jul 2011. godine 17. mart 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=154607 ?id=157063 ?id=150226 Otvorena izložba fotografija „Put "Dani evropske kulturne baštine" u Donacija Italije Centralnom kulture – Tvrđave na Dunavu“ septembru u Sremskim Karlovcima institutu za konzervaciju 10. jun 2011. godine 27. jul 2011. godine
145 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
U Briselu predstavljeni gradovi Bijenale naivne i marginalne http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Srbije umetnosti u Jagodini od 28. oktobra ?id=157107 21. septembar 2011. godine 26. oktobar 2011. godine U toku jubilarni vajarski simpozijum "Tera" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 27. jul 2011. godine ?id=160409 ?id=162029 Otvoren regionalni skup Završen 56. međunarodni sajam http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php "Interkulturni dijalog i film" knjiga u Beogradu ?id=157685 3. oktobar 2011. godine 31. oktobar 2011. godine Marković i Paet otvorili izložbu fotografija ''Godišnja doba'' http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 10. avgust 2011. godine ?id=160817 ?id=162456 Otvorena izložba „Ivo Andrić u Dani srpske kulture u Temišvaru http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php diplomatiji“ 7. novembar 2011. godine ?id=157760 10. oktobar 2011. godine U Smederevu počeo "Tvrđava http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php teatar" http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=162514 12. avgust 2011. godine ?id=160849 Srbija član Komiteta Uneska za Film "Tilva Roš" kandidat za zaštitu svetske kulturne baštine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php evropskog Oskara 8. novembar 2011. godine ?id=158632 11. oktobar 2011. godine Razmena ideja kroz umetnost http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 2. septembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=162574 ?id=160976 Marković otvorio “Dane srpske http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Unapređenje saradnje Srbije i kulture u Temišvaru” ?id=158729 Nemačke u oblasti kulturnog 9. novembar 2011. godine Srbija čuva i svoje i kulturno nasleđa nasleđe drugih zemalja 13. oktobar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 3. septembar 2011. godine ?id=163483 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Marković otvorio “Dane srpskog http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=160979 filma” u Ruskoj Federaciji ?id=158734 Uručeni sertifikati stručnjacima za 24. novembar 2011. godine Otvorena izložba “Nesvrstani – od konzervaciju iz Jugoistočne Evrope Beograda do Beograda” 13. oktobar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 3. septembar 2011. godine ?id=163683 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Stalna izložba srpskih fresaka u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=161107 bazilici Santa Kroče u Firenci ?id=158990 Večeras počinje 43. Bemus 28. novembar 2011. godine Izložba „Put kulture – tvrđave na 15. oktobar 2011. godine Dunavu“ u Solunu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 8. septembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=163707 ?id=161386 Marković otvorio izložbu skulptura http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Sajam knjiga u Beogradu otvara austrijske umetnice Gundi Dic ?id=159039 pisac Mija Koto 29. novembar 2011. godine Marković otvorio 48. Beogradske 19. oktobar 2011. godine međunarodne susrete pisaca http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 9. septembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=163804 ?id=161616 Otvorena stalna postavka kopija http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Otvoren 56. Beogradski sajam srpskih fresaka u bazilici Santa ?id=159085 knjiga Kroče u Firenci Srbija sa ponosom čuva evropsku 24. oktobar 2011. godine 30. novembar 2011. godine kulturnu baštinu 10. septembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=161674 ?id=163927 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Marković prisustvovao Otvorena izložba posvećena Ivi ?id=159271 predstavljanju Republike Srpske na Andriću u palati UN u Ženevi Marković predstavio izveštaj o radu sajmu knjiga u Beogradu 1. decembar 2011. godine Ministarstva kulture 24. oktobar 2011. godine 14. septembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=164603 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=161623 Ministarstvo kulture postiglo ?id=159247 Saradnja Srbije i Angole u oblasti značajne rezultate Otvoren 45. Beogradski kulture 14. decembar 2011. godine internacionalni teatarski festival - 24. oktobar 2011. godine Bitef http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 14. septembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=164972 ?id=161728 Usklađivanje propisa iz oblasti http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Puštene u opticaj poštanske marke zaštite kulturnog nasleđa sa ?id=159355 posvećene Ivi Andriću i Rakel de međunarodnim aktima Otvoreni Dani srpske kulture u Keiroz 20. decembar 2011. godine Ruskoj Federaciji 25. oktobar 2011. godine 16. septembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=165099 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=161796 ?id=159673
146 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
Koncert Srba iz Rumunije i 20. april 2012. godine Mađarske za publiku u matičnoj http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php državi http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=175868 22. decembar 2011. godine ?id=172073 Rad mladih srpskih arhitekata U Parizu otvorena izložba 40 veoma zapažen na Bijenalu u http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php najznačajnijih autora-autodidakta iz Veneciji ?id=165350 celog sveta 6. septembar 2012. godine Bogat program festivala 21. maj 2012. godine „Kustendorf 2012“ http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 27. decembar 2011. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=176336 ?id=172235 Počeo 46. Bitef Marković razgovarao sa ministrom 13. septembar 2012. godine 2012. kulture Makedonije 27. maj 2012. godine http://kultura.gov.rs/druga- http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php medjunarodna-konferencija-oebs ?id=166076 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Druga međunarodna konferencija Otvoren festival “Kustendorf 2012” ?id=172181 OEBS-a 17. januar 2012. godine Ministar kulture u radnoj poseti 20. septembar 2012. godine Skoplju http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 25. maj 2012. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=167825 ?id=176934 Film "Parada" dobitnik prve http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Veliki značaj manifestacije „Dani nagrade publike Berlinskog filmskog ?id=172316 evropske baštine“ festivala Izabran rad koji će predstavljati 22. septembar 2012. godine 19. februar 2012. godine Srbiju na bijenalu arhitekture u Veneciji http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 30. maj 2012. godine ?id=178498 ?id=168762 Otvoren 57. Beogradski sajam Marković otvorio Festival http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php knjiga frankofonog filma ?id=172761 22. oktobar 2012. godine 9. mart 2012. godine Marković predstavio izveštaj o radu Ministarstva kulture http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://kultura.gov.rs/izvestaj-o-radu-u- 14. jun 2012. godine ?id=178556 prethodnih-godinu-dana Petković uručio nagradu "Dositej Izveštaj o radu u prethodnih godinu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Obradović" slovačkom izdavaču dana ?id=173091 "Kaligram" 14. mart 2012. Donacija Ambasade SAD 22. oktobar 2012. godine Etnografskom muzeju u Beogradu http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php 26. jun 2012. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=169489 ?id=178583 Potpisan Protokol o povraćaju http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Petković na Ministarskoj kulturnih dobara iz Srbije u ?id=173089 konferenciji Uneska u Sofiji Hrvatsku Promocija domaćeg filma i kulture u 23. oktobar 2012. godine 23. mart 2012. godine Australiji 26. jun 2012. godine http://kultura.gov.rs/ministar-kulture- http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php na-8-uneskovoj-ministarskoj- ?id=169858 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php konferenciji-zemalja-jugoistocne- Matić na sastanku svetskih ?id=173146 evrope komesara Brodbend komisije u Prepoznavanje vrednosti ključno u Ministar kulture na 8. Uneskovoj Ohridu očuvanju identiteta ministarskoj konferenciji zemalja 30. mart 2012. godine 28. jun 2012. godine Jugoistočne Evrope 25. oktobar 2012. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=170003 ?id=173382 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Matić imenovana za novog člana Za arheološka istraživanja u Srbiji ?id=178919 međunarodne Brodbend komisije pola miliona funti Petković u poseti Belorusiji 2.april 2012. godine 9. jul 2012. godine 29. oktobar 2012. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=170065 ?id=175033 ?id=178944 Matić i Ture obišli informatički Petković otvorio Prvi međunarodni Unapređenje saradnje sa kabinet u Vranju festival sportskog filma Belorusijom u oblasti kulture i 3. april 2012. godine 22. avgust 2012. godine umetnosti 29. oktobar 2012. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=170515 ?id=175099 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Uvođenjem otvorene uprave do veće Petković razgovarao sa Cebeom o ?id=179302 javnosti rada vlasti bibliotečkoj delatnosti Predstavljanje srpske kulture u 11. april 2012. godine 23. avgust 2012. godine Rumuniji 5. novembar 2012. godine http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php ?id=170897 ?id=175447 http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php Audiovizuelna politika bila prioritet Otvoren paviljon Srbije na Bijenalu ?id=180123 predsedavanja Savetu ministara arhitekture u Veneciji Podrška Egzitu i kandidaturi Novog kulture (Jugoistočne Evrope) 30. avgust 2012. godine Sada za prestonicu kulture
147 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013
IX Author’s biography
Miloš Ćirić (1985) graduated at Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade at International relations department on topic European system of values as motive for EU integrations of Serbia. Since 2006 active in civil sector, working and volunteering for many non-governmental organizations in Belgrade. Since 2008, employed with The Hourglass, political radio show and online political magazine where he works as author, deputy editor- in-chief, organizer and developer. Interested in politics, technology, culture, new media and their mutual influence on possible social change.
148 | Cultural Diplomacy in Serbia – Comparative Analysis of Strategies and Practices of Different Ministries of Culture in Period 2001-2013